Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 
Getty  Research  Institute 


https://archive.org/details/empireofamoritesOOclay 


YALE 

ORIENTAL  SERIES 

EESEAECHES 

VOLUME  VI 

PUBLISHED  ON  THE  FOUNDATION 
ESTABLISHED  IN  MEMORY  OF 
ALEXANDER  KOHUT 


YALE  ORIENTAL  SERIES  • RESEARCHES  • VOLUME  VI 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  THE 
AMORITES 


BY 

ALBERT  T.  CLAY 


NEW  HAVEN 

YALE  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

LONDON  • HUMPHREY  MILFORD  • OXFORD  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

MDCCCCXIX 


COPYRIGHT,  1919,  BY 
Yale  University  Press. 


THE  ALEXANDER  KOHUT  MEMORIAL  PUBLICATION 

* FUND. 


This  volume  is  published  by  the  Yale  University  Press  on  the 
Alexander  Kohut  Memorial  Publication  Fund.  This  Foundation 
was  established  October  13, 1915,  by  a gift  to  Yale  University  from 
members  of  his  family  for  the  purpose  of  enabling  scholars  to  pub- 
lish texts  and  monographs  in  the  Semitic  field  of  research. 

The  Reverend  Alexander  Kohut,  Ph.D.  (Leipzig),  a distin- 
guished Oriental  scholar,  in  whose  memory  the  fund  has  been 
t established,  was  born  in  Hungary,  April  22, 1842,  of  a noted  family 
of  rabbis.  "When  pastor  of  the  Congregation  Ahavath  Chesed  in 
New  York  City,  he  became  one  of  the  founders  of  the  Jewish  Theo- 
logical Seminary,  and  was  a professor  in  that  institution  until  his 
death.  He  was  a noted  pulpit  orator,  able  to  discourse  with  equal 
mastery  in  three  languages.  Among  his  contributions  to  Semitic 
learning  is  the  monumental  work  Aruch  Completum,  an  encyclo- 
paedic dictionary  of  the  Talmud,  in  eight  volumes.  Semitic  and 
Oriental  scholars  have  honored  his  memory  by  inscribing  to  him  a 
volume  of  Semitic  Studies  (Berlin,  1897). 


(5) 


TO 

GEORGE  A.  BARTON,  Ph.D.,  LL.D. 


MT  ESTEEMED  COLLEAGUE  AND  FRIEND 


PREFACE 


Sayce  and  Wright  about  forty  years  Ago  brought  to  the  attention 
of  those  interested  in  Ancient  History  the  forgotten  empire  of  the 
Hittites.  The  study  of  the  inscriptions  of  Egypt  and  Babylonia 
in  the  decades  which  preceded  had  made  this  possible  by  furnish- 
ing allusions  to  this  people  who  came  to  the  fore  about  2000  B.  C. 
Another  nearly  forgotten  empire  which  exerted  a powerful  influ- 
ence upon  the  surrounding  nations,  namely  the  Amorite,  is  also 
brought  to  light  through  similar  investigations  of  the  last  few 
decades,  largely  in  the  cuneiform  literature;  but  this  empire 
belonged  to  the  period  just  prior  to  the  ascendancy  of  the  Hittites. 

In  Amurru,  the  Home  of  the  Northern  Semites , a study  showing 
that  the  religion  and  culture  of  Israel  are  not  of  Babylonian  origin, 
the  thesis  was  advanced  that  the  culture  of  the  Semitic  Babylo- 
nians had,  if  not  its  origin,  at  least  a long  development  in  the  land 
of  the  Amorites  before  it  was  carried  into  Babylonia ; and  that  the 
religion  and  culture  of  Israel  were  not  importations  from  Baby- 
lonia, but  developed  naturally  in  their  own  land  from  an  earlier 
and  indigenous  civilization. 

As  is  well  known,  there  appeared  in  Germany  about  a score  of 
years  ago  a vigorous  school  of  critics  generally  known  as  the  Pan- 
Babylonian  or  Astral-mythological  School,  which  maintained  that 
Babylonia  had  furnished  the  Hebrews  with  most  of  their  religious 
ideas,  including  monotheism;  in  fact,  the  members  of  this  school 
held  that  the  civilization  of  Israel  generally  had  its  origin  in  Baby- 
lonia. Winckler,  the  founder  of  the  school,  endeavored  to  show 
that  the  patriarchs  and  other  leaders  of  Israel,  as  Joshua,  Gideon, 
Saul,  David,  etc.,  were  solar  or  lunar  deities  of  the  Babylonians. 
Delitzsch  called  Canaan  at  the  time  of  the  exodus  a domain  of 
Babylonian  culture.  Gunkel  held  that  Israel’s  religion  had  assimi- 
lated actively  this  Babylonian  material,  and  when  it  had  become 
relaxed  in  strength,  it  swallowed  the  foreign  elements,  feathers 
and  all.  Zimmern  found  that  elements  of  the  Marduk  cult  were 
applied  to  Christ : even  his  death  was  suggested  by  that  of  Marduk 
and  Tammuz.  But  the  most  extreme  of  all  was  Jensen,  who  found 

(9) 


10 


THE  EMPIRE  OE  THE  AMORITES. 


that  all  the  biblical  characters,  from  Abram  to  Christ,  even  includ- 
ing John  the  Baptist,  were  simply  borrowed  from  Babylonian  sun- 
myths. 

In  popularizing  these  theories,  as  well  as  others  not  so  far-reach- 
ing, that  arose  in  Germany,  certain  American  and  English  scholars 
resorted  to  all  kinds  of  efforts  to  pare  them  down  so  as  to  make 
them  more  palatable : by  making  the  borrowings  early  instead  of 
late,  proposing  that  when  Israel  entered  Palestine  they  were  part 
of  the  mental  possession  of  the  people;  or  by  making  it  appear 
that  these  Babylonian  myths  were  simply  used  in  a devotional  way 
to  illustrate  ethical  implications,  or  as  media  for  the  expression  of 
a more  spiritual  faith.  In  many  quarters,  scholars  gravitated 
toward  this  theory;  and  it  was  conceded  generally  that  there  was 
a considerable  dependence  upon  Babylonia.  Reflections  of  these 
revolutionary  ideas  flared  up  almost  everywhere. 

The  purpose  of  the  study  Amurru  was  to  examine  the  data  upon 
which  the  theories  rested;  the  results  were  such  that  it  could  he 
asserted  that  Israel  did  not  adopt  the  civilization  of  the  Babylo- 
nians and  that  they  were  not  the  purveyors  of  borrowed  religious 
ideas  and  myths  from  Babylonia.  The  study  of  the  cultural 
elements  of  both  lands  did  not  show  such  Babylonian  influence,  for 
apart  from  the  use  of  the  Babylonian  language  and  syllabary  in 
the  West,  the  evidence  from  the  Neolithic  to  the  Greek  period  is 
wanting.  To  cite  a single  test,  Ellil  was  the  name  of  the  chief  god 
of  Babylonia  until  Marduk  supplanted  him.  Nergal  was  also  a 
well  known  Babylonian  deity.  The  thesis  Amurru  maintained  that 
these  were  names  of  Amorite  deities  which  had  arisen  in  Babylonia 
largely  because  of  the  form  in  which  they  had  been  written:  En-lil, 
Amar-Utug,  and  Ne-Uru-Gal.  Even  though  this  proves  incorrect, 
if  Babylonia  furnished  the  West  with  its  religion  and  culture,  where 
is  the  influence  of  these  deities  seen?  The  single  use  of  the  ideo- 
gram Ne-Uru-Gal  on  the  Ta‘anach  seal  proves  nothing,  for  it 
doubtless  reproduces  the  name  of  an  Amorite  god.  But  where  in 
the  West  do  we  find  the  pronunciation  of  Ellil,  Marduk,  Nergal,1 
which  we  know  was  actually  used  in  Babylonia? 

1 Post-exilic  names  like  Mordecai  of  course  cannot  be  considered ; nor 
“the  priest  of  Nergal”  mentioned  in  a Phoenician  inscription  of  the  third 
century  B.  C. 


PBEFACE. 


11 


The  thesis  was  presented  not  only  to  demonstrate  that  the  Pan- 
Babylonists  ’ claims  must  he  abandoned,  but  also  to  show  that  the 
elements  from  which  the  Semitic  Babylonian  religion  had  largely 
evolved  had  their  origin  in  the  West  land,  or  in  the  land  of 
Amnrrn ; and  that,  instead  of  the  Hebrew  culture  being  imported 
from  Babylonia,  it  had  grown  up  and  developed  naturally  from 
older  and  indigenous  civilizations  which  had  come  down  from  gen- 
erations reaching  far  back  into  the  ages.  To  make  this  appear 
reasonable,  it  became  necessary  to  show  that  there  was  an  anti- 
quity for  the  civilization  of  this  Semitic  land  which  had  been 
hitherto  unrecognized. 

It  was  fully  expected  that  out  of  the  mass  of  details  offered  in 
substantiation  of  the  thesis,  certain  reviewers  would  seize  upon 
such  as  would  be  readily  recognized  as  doubtful  by  the  casual 
reader.  Mingled  with  the  hundreds  of  facts  presented  in  Amurru, 
there  are  many  comparisons  and  suggested  identifications  set  forth, 
that  the  unbiased  investigator  recognized  were  not  “put  on  the 
same  level.”  For  as  one  scholar  wrote:  “It  is  sufficient  merit 
to  have  opened  up  new  vistas  of  the  ancient  culture  of  the  Northern 
and  Western  Semites ; and  even  if  some  of  the  points  emphasized, 
perhaps  unduly,  should  not  turn  out  to  be  supports  for  the  theories, 
enough  and  more  than  enough  remains  to  substantiate  the  main 
thesis  that  the  Amorites  entered  Babylonia  at  an  early  period 
and  brought  the  worship  of  certain  gods  and  cosmological  and 
other  traditions  with  them,  and  that  what  we  designate  as  Baby- 
lonian religion  is  the  result  of  the  mixture  of  these  Amoritish  ele- 
ments with  those  indigenous  to  the  Euphrates  Valley.”2 

It  was  not  thought  for  a moment  that  such  an  innovation  would 
appeal  to  Winckler  and  his  followers,  abroad  or  in  this  country. 
It  was  not  even  contemplated  that  such  a reactionary  view  would 
cause  the  casting  aside  of  the  cherished  Pan-Babylonian  theories 
by  those  who  had  adopted  them  as  their  own.  And  yet  the  publi- 
cations since  the  appearance  of  the  book  in  1909  show  that  the 
stream  of  Pan-Babylonian  literature  suddenly  changed  from  a tor- 
rent to  an  almost  insignificant  rivulet. 

Most  gratifying  has  been  the  number  of  those  who,  by  review  or 
comment  in  various  publications,  or  by  correspondence,  have 

2 Prof.  J.  A.  Montgomery  in  The  Nation,  March  24,  1910,  p.  291. 


12 


THE  EMPIRE  OP  THE  AMORITES. 


accepted  the  new  point  of  view;  and  even  of  those  who,  though 
unable  to  see  their  way  clear  to  reverse  completely  their  position, 
have  realized  that  the  cumulative  proof  presented  is  evidence  of 
a character  that  requires  serious  consideration. 

The  work  Amurru  was  in  no  sense  meant  as  an  apologetic  effort 
in  the  interests  of  the  traditional  view  of  the  Old  Testament.  It 
was  not  intended  to  minimize  the  fact  that  the  biblical  writers 
brought  the  current  myths  or  legends,  with  which  they  were 
acquainted,  into  accord  with  their  advanced  monotheistic  concep- 
tion of  the  government  of  the  universe.  It  did,  however,  defend 
vigorously  the  historical  existence  of  such  personages  as  Abraham, 
Moses,  etc.,  as  well  as  of  a patriarchal  period.  While  there  was  no 
apologetic  effort  intended,  the  conclusion  which  resulted  tended 
to  emphasize  the  reliability  of  the  main  outlines  of  the  early  history 
of  the  Hebrews  and  neighboring  peoples  as  recorded  in  the  Old 
Testament. 

The  purpose  of  the  present  contribution  is  to  assemble  all  the 
light  that  bears  upon  the  history  and  religion  of  the  Amorites, 
especially  of  that  early  period  when  the  empire  still  existed;  to 
corroborate  the  great  antiquity  that  the  writer  has  claimed  for 
this  people  in  making  them  one  of  the  earliest  known ; to  show  that 
Ur  of  the  Chaldees  was  very  probably  the  capital  of  the  Amorite 
empire ; incidentally  to  offer  additional  evidence  in  substantiation 
of  the  thesis  of  Amurru;  and  to  demonstrate  that  the  generally 
accepted  theory  of  the  Arabian  origin  of  the  Semites  is  utterly 
baseless. 

It  would  be  rash  to  imagine  that  all  the  multitudinous  details 
set  forth  will  pass  the  test  of  future  searching  inquiry.  Inevitable 
alterations  and  difference  of  opinion  manifestly  will  result  from 
their  presentation;  yet  it  is  fully  expected  that  the  main  outlines 
will  stand  the  test. 

The  writer  is  indebted  to  his  colleague  Prof.  C.  C.  Torrey,  to 
Prof.  A.  T.  Olmstead,  Doctor  Ettalene  M.  Grice  and  Doctor  Henry 
F.  Lutz  for  valuable  suggestions,  and  assistance  rendered  in  con- 
nection with  the  manuscript  and  proofreading. 


New  Haven,  Conn., 
November  11,  1918. 


Albert  T.  Clay. 


CONTENTS. 


Page 

I Introduction  17 

II  The  Home  of  the  Semites 27 

III  The  Country  Amurru 50 

IV  Excavations  in  Amurru 53 

V The  Races  of  Amurru 58 

VI  The  Languages  and  Writing  of  Amurru 61 

VII  The  Name  Amurru  or  Uru 66 

VIII  Amorites  in  Babylonia 76 

IX  Early  Babylonians  in  Amurru 95 

X Ur  the  Capital  of  Amurru 100 

XI  Other  Mesopotamian  Kingdoms Ill 

XII  Mediterranean  Kingdoms  121 

XIII  Amorites  in  Cappadocia 131 

XIV  Egypt  and  Amurru 138 

XV  Amorites  in  the  Old  Testament 152 

XVT  Assyria  and  Amurru 156 

XVII  The  Deities  of  Amurru 162 


(13) 


ABBREVIATIONS 


A & B 
ABL 

ADB 

ADD 

AE 

AJT 

AJSL 

Amurru 

AKA 

APN 

B 

Barton,  Archaeology  and  the  Bible. 

Harper,  Assyrian  and  Babylonian  Letters. 

Johns,  An  Assyrian  Doomsday  Book. 

Johns,  Assyrian  Deeds  and  Documents. 

Muller,  Asien  und  Europa. 

American  Journal  of  Theology. 

American  Journal  of  Semitic  Languages. 

Clay,  Amurru  the  Home  of  the  Northern  Semites. 

King,  The  Annals  of  the  Kings-  of  Assyria. 

Tallqvist,  Assyrian  Personal  Names. 

Briinnow,  A Classified  List  of  Cuneiform  Ideographs. 

BA  Beitrage  zur  Assyriologie. 

Babyloniaca  Babyloniaca-Etudes  de  Philologie  Assyro-Babylonienne. 
BAR  Breasted,  Ancient  Records  of  Egypt. 


BE 

BRM 

Catalogue 

Babylonian  Expedition  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania. 
Babylonian  Records  in  the  Library  of  J.  Pierpont  Morgan. 
Catalogue  of  the  Cuneiform  Tablets  in  the  Kouyunjik  Collec- 
tion. 

Clay  PN 
Chron 

CT 

Clay,  Personal  Names  of  the  Cassite  Period  ( YOR  I). 

King,  Chronicles  concerning  Early  Babylonian  Kings. 
Cuneiform  Texts  from  Babylonian  Tablets,  etc.,  in  the  Brit- 
ish Museum. 

EBL 

EM 

Lutz,  Early  Babylonian  Letters  from  Larsa  (TBT  II). 

Miiller,  Egyptian  Mythology ; Vol.  XIII,  The  Mythology  of  all 
Races. 

HB 

HE 

HLC 

JA 

JAOS 

JBL 

JRAS 

KB 

KAT3 

King,  A History  of  Babylon. 

Breasted,  A History  of  Egypt. 

Barton,  Haverford  Library  Collection  of  Cuneiform  Tablets. 
Journal  Asiatique. 

Journal  of  the  American  Oriental  Society. 

Journal  of  Biblical  Literature. 

Journal  of  the  Royal  Asiatic  Society. 

Keilinschriftliche  Bibliothek. 

Zimmern  and  Winckler,  Die  Keilinschriften  und  das  Alte 
Testament. 

(15) 


16 

KTA 

LC 

LIE 

MBI 

MDOG 

MI 

Miscln 

MY  AG 
OLZ 
PSBA 
K 

RA 

RBBA 

Kanke  PN 

RS 

SA 

SBH 

Tafannek 

TSBA 

UMBS 

VB 

VS 

YBC 

YBT 

YOR 

ZA 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  THE  AMORITES. 

Messerschmidt,  Keilschrifttexte  aus  Assur. 

Tliureau-Dangin,  Lettres  et  Contrats  cle  I’epoque  de  la  pre- 
miere Dynastie  Babylonienne. 

King,  Letters  and  Inscriptions  of  Hammurabi. 

Barton,  Miscellaneous  Babylonian  Inscriptions. 

Mitteilungen  der  Deutschen  Orient-Gesellsehaft . 

Clay,  Miscellaneous  Inscriptions  in  the  Yale  Babylonian  Col- 
lection ( YBT  I). 

Weissbach,  Babylonische  Miscellen ; Part  I Wissenschaftliche 
Yeroffentlichungen  der  Deutschen  Orient-Gesellsehaft. 
Mitteilungen  der  V orderasiatischen  Gesellscliaft. 
Orientalistische  Literatur-Z eitung . 

Proceedings  of  the  Society  of  Biblical  Archaeology. 
Bawlinson,  The  Cuneiform  Inscriptions  of  Western  Asia. 
Revue  d’Assyriologie  et  d’Archeologie  Orientate. 

Jastrow,  Religious  Belief  in  Babylonia  and  Assyria. 

Kanke,  Early  Babylonian  Personal  Names. 

Revue  Semitique. 

King,  Sumer  and  Akkad. 

Keisner,  Sumerisch-Babylonische  Hymnen. 

Hrozny,  Die  Keilschrifttexte  von  Ta‘ annek,  in  Sellin  Tell 
Ta‘annek. 

Transactions  of  the  Society  of  Biblical  Archaeology . 

The  University  Museum  Publications  of  the  Babylonian  Sec- 
tion. 

V orderasiatische  Bibliothek. 

Vorderasiatische  Schriftdenkmdler. 

Yale  Babylonian  Collection. 

Yale  Oriental  Series — Babylonian  Texts. 

Yale  Oriental  Series — Researches. 

Zeitschrift  fur  Assyriologie. 


I. 

INTRODUCTION 


The  evidence  of  the  early  existence  of  the  Amorites,  as  well  as 
the  proof  of  the  futility  of  the  Arabian  theory,  depends  largely 
upon  a study  of  names  of  countries,  cities,  temples,  deities,  and 
persons.  An  occasional  historical  reference  is  found  which  throws 
welcome  light  upon  the  subject,  as  for  example,  the  origin  of  the 
founder  of  a dynasty,  an  allusion  to  the  invasion  of  the  land,  or  a 
title  showing  suzerainty  of  the  country,  etc.  But  in  determining- 
origins  or  influences,  and  even  data  upon  which  historical  events 
are  based,  there  is  no  more  important  evidence  available  at  present 
than  that  furnished  through  the  study  of  names. 

In  not  a few  instances,  considerable  depends  upon  even  a single 
name;  for  example,  it  rested  alone  upon  the  resemblance  of  the 
name  Humbaba  of  the  Gilgamesli  epic  to  the  name  Humba,  an 
Elamitic  god,  that  the  belief  that  the  cedar  forest  scenes  of  the  epic 
were  laid  in  Elam,  instead  of  the  Lebanon  or  Amanus  districts, 
which,  however,  is  now  definitely  shown  is  a mistake  (see  Chapter 
VIII). 

There  are  known  at  present  more  than  a hundred  thousand  per- 
sonal names  which  were  written  upon  clay  tablets  belonging  to  all 
periods  of  Babylonian  history.  Having  the  opportunity  of  study- 
ing such  large  masses  of  names  of  a particular  country,  it  becomes 
possible  to  single  out  or  designate  with  considerable  accuracy  what 
is  foreign  and  what  is  not. 

A large  number  of  foreign  names  in  Babylonian  literature  do 
not  contain  any  known  elements,  which  fact  makes  it  impossible  to 
identify  their  source ; but  thanks  to  our  increasing  knowledge  of 
the  cultural  elements  of  certain  peoples,  at  least  those  of  a general 
character,  and  more  exact  knowledge  of  the  civilization  of  others, 
it  is  quite  possible  to  identify  with  considerable  accuracy  names 
on  the  one  hand  that  are  Babylonian  or  Sumerian,  and  on  the  other 
that  are  Cassite,  Hittite,  Mitannian,  Elamitic,  Persian,  Hebrew, 
Egyptian,  Arabic,  Greek,  etc. 


(17) 


18 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  THE  AMORITES. 


Most  of  these  nationalities  can  readily  be  determined  from  a 
knowledge  of  their  nomenclatures;  but  even  the  nationality  of 
names  in  languages  of  which  we  have  little  knowledge  can  fre- 
quently be  identified.  Although  to  start  with  we  may  be  familiar 
with  only  a few  names  belonging  to  a foreign  people,  it  neverthe- 
less soon  becomes  possible  to  identify  many  scores  of  others  as 
belonging  to  the  same  people.  For  example,  we  may  know  that 
Teshub  was  the  name  of  a Hittite  god,  who  was  also  worshipped 
in  Mitanni.  Names  constituted  with  Teshub  can  therefore  be  ten- 
tatively set  apart  as  Hittite,  or  Mitannian.  The  elements  that  are 
found  combined  with  Teshub  are  compounded  with  names  of  other 
deities,  which  enables  us  to  increase  the  list,  at  least  tentatively. 
This  process  can  be  continued  until  a surprisingly  large  list  of 
words  is  collected.  The  possibility  of  error  in  thus  assembling  and 
determining  foreign  names,  as  well  as  words,  belonging  to  peoples 
of  whose  language  we  have  little  or  perhaps  no  knowledge,  is  recog- 
nized ; but  nevertheless,  although  such  lists  of  foreign  names  suffer 
modification,  the  method  leads  to  permanent  results. 

The  foreign  names  found  on  tablets  from  Babylonia  represent 
the  peoples  that  came  in  contact  with  those  who  lived  in  the  valley 
of  the  Tigris  and  Euphrates.  In  some  instances  only  isolated 
examples  occur,  and  again  masses  of  names,  belonging  to  a partic- 
ular people.  In  many  instances  such  influx  of  foreigners  is  caused 
by  migrations  or  conquests;  a foreign  nation  has  invaded  the 
land;  or  these  alien  names  represent  peoples  who  were  brought 
captive  into  the  land,  or  who  settled  in  it.  These  foreign  names, 
considered  in  connection  with  the  personal  names  of  rulers,  make 
it  possible  in  some  instances  to  reconstruct  considerable  history 
with  little  additional  data.  For  example,  in  the  time  of  Manish- 
tusu,  many  Amorite  names  occur.  The  names  of  the  rulers  of  the 
Nisin,  Larsa,  and  Babylon  dynasties,  which  were  contemporaneous, 
as  well  as  the  thousands  of  foreign  Amorite  names  in  the  legal  and 
epistolary  literature  of  the  latter  part  of  the  third  millennium 
B.  C.,  show  the  same  influence.  The  names  of  the  rulers  of  the 
Cassite  period  bear  Cassite  names,  and  the  documents  of  this  time 
contain  many  of  the  same  character,  and  also  Hittite-Mitannian 
names.  Hebrew  names  abound  in  the  Assyrian  inscriptions,  after 
Israel  had  been  carried  into  captivity.  The  same  is  true  in  the 


I.  INTRODUCTION. 


19 


Neo-Babylonian  period  after  Judah  had  been  carried  into  captivity. 
In  the  Persian  period,  besides  Hebrew  names,  many  Persian  and 
some  Egyptian  names  occur,  the  latter  apparently  due  to  the  rule 
of  the  Persian  kings  in  Egypt.  And  as  was  to  be  expected,  in  the 
Greek  period,  Greek  names  are  found.  Besides  the  large  masses 
of  foreign  names,  smaller  groups  in  the  various  periods  can  in 
many  instances  be  accounted  for.  Even  the  absence  of  such  for- 
eign names  in  certain  periods  furnishes  very  important  data  in 
deciding  questions  bearing  on  invasions,  migrations,  influence,  etc. 
In  brief,  the  study  of  names,  together  with  isolated  historical  facts 
gathered  from  the  records  of  contemporaneous  peoples,  has  made 
it  possible  to  create  at  least  the  outlines  of  the  history  of  certain 
ancient  nations. 

A complete  treatise  on  the  political  history  and  religion  of  the 
land  Amurru  would  embrace  all  our  knowledge  of  Hebrew  history 
and  religion,  the  early  legends  and  primitive  religions  of  Palestine 
referred  to  in  the  Old  Testament,  the  history  and  religion  touched 
upon  in  the  Amoraic  and  Aramaic  inscriptions  of  the  first  millen- 
nium B.  C.,  as  well  as  in  the  later  Greek  and  Roman  sources.  It 
is  the  purpose  of  the  present  study,  however,  to  emphasize  espe- 
cially the  material  belonging  to  the  history  of  the  early  period, 
when  the  Amorite  empire  existed.  Incidental  references  are  made, 
however,  to  certain  facts  belonging  to  the  later  period,  from 
Egyptian  and  Biblical  sources,  which  throw  light  upon  questions 
belonging  to  the  early  period. 

We  are  here  interested  chiefly  in  the  Amorites  of  the  third, 
fourth,  and  fifth  millenniums  B.  C.,  when  the  great  empire  of  the 
Amorites  existed,  although  the  prevailing  view  is  that  the  Semites 
of  Amurru  came  out  of  Arabia  as  barbarians  in  the  latter  part  of 
the  third  millennium  B.  C.,  and  later.  True,  the  knowledge  we 
have  of  their  early  history  is  little  more  than  a glimmer  here  and 
there,  obtained  from  the  records  of  Babylonia  and  Egypt,  except 
as  we  feel  the  pulse  of  this  people  by  contact  with  offshoots  that 
appear  in  the  surrounding  lands.  It  is  upon  these  data  that  we 
must  largely  rely  at  present ; namely,  the  influence  exerted  by  the 
Amorites  upon  peoples  with  whom  they  came  in  contact  through 
their  encroachments  upon,  and  invasions  of  other  lands. 

The  existence  of  an  Amorite  civilization  as  early  as  the  Baby- 


20 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  THE  AMORITES. 


Ionian,  as  well  as  the  inference  that  Anrarru  furnished  Babylonia 
with  its  Semitic  inhabitants,  as  noted,  are  dependent  largely  upon 
the  Sumerian  and  Akkadian  inscriptions.  Unfortunately  at  the 
very  beginning  of  our  investigation  we  are  confronted  with  the 
difficulty  of  differentiating  between  what  is  Sumerian  and  what  is 
Semitic. 

The  fact  that  a name  or  a religious  idea  appears  in  the  Sumerian 
language  does  not  necessarily  imply  that  it  is  Sumerian.  Much 
that  has  been  credited  to  the  Sumerians  has  already  proved  to 
be  Semitic.  The  idea  of  the  ziggurrat,  for  example,  being  a high 
place,  upon  which  the  gods  were  worshipped,  is  generally  regarded 
as  a Sumerian  idea.  This  seems  to  be  almost  entirely  due  to  the 
fact  that  the  towers  hear  Sumerian  names,  as  well  as  the  temples 
with  which  they  are  connected.  But  this  is  the  case  even  in  centres, 
as  far  as  is  known,  that  have  always  been  Semitic.  It  is  largely 
because  of  these  names  that  the  Sumerians  are  regarded  as  having- 
come  from  a mountainous  district. 

We  know  of  a certainty  that  in  all  early  periods  of  which  we 
have  knowledge,  the  Semite  as  well  as  the  Sumerian  used  the  lan- 
guage of  the  latter.  Even  in  comparatively  late  periods  Sumerian 
was  used  for  legal  purposes ; and  up  to  the  very  latest,  as  the  litur- 
gical language.  It  was  used  frequently  also  for  monumental 
purposes  in  all  periods.  Lugal-zaggisi  used  both  languages  on 
his  monuments  (cf.  BE  I,  87,  and  TJMBS  V,  34).  The  same  is 
true  of  Sargon  ( UMBS  V,  34,  etc.),  and  kings  of  the  Nisin,  Larsa, 
and  Babylon  dynasties. 

Long  ago  it  was  argued  that  Lugal-zaggisi  was  a Semite,  when 
only  his  Sumerian  inscription  was  known  (BE  I,  266-268).  It  was 
also  maintained  that  names  like  Ur-Nina  ( Kalbi-Nina ),  A-Kur- 
Gal  ( Apil-TJru ),  Dun-gi  (Bau-ukin,  or  perhaps  Dun-Gir  “the 
Hero  of  Gir”),  etc.,  were  Semitic,  but  that  they  appeared  in  a 
Sumerian  garb.  Naturally  it  is  possible  to  transpose  most  of  the 
Sumerian  names  into  Semitic,  because  the  ancient  Oriental  and 
other  names  had  much  in  common  in  construction  and  in  meaning, 
even  if  not  linguistically. 

While  unfortunately  it  cannot  be  proved  to  what  extent  this  was 
actually  done,  the  custom  can  be  shown  to  have  been  practiced. 


I.  INTRODUCTION. 


21 


For  example,  in  the  period  of  the  Larsa  dynasty,  the  golden  era 
of  Babylonian  history,  we  know  of  Semitic  names  of  places  which 
were  written  phonetically,  giving  ns  the  exact  pronunciation  of 
these  names,  that  were  also  written  in  Sumerian;  and  in  some 
cases  the  elements  are  transposed,  for  example,  Ishkun-N ergal,  the 
Semitic  name  of  a city  in  the  fourteenth  year  of  Rim-Sin,  is  also 
written  in  Sumerian,  Nergal-gar-ra.1  Also  because  of  other  con- 
siderations it  is  very  often  difficult  to  know  from  the  form  in  which 
the  personal  name  appears,  whether  we  have  to  do  with  an  Akka- 
dian (i.  e.  Semitic)  or  a Sumerian. 

But  this  is  not  without  a parallel  even  in  the  present  time.  A 
Japanese  name  written  ideographically  can  be  also  pronounced  in 
Chinese,  which  would  be  quite  different  from  Japanese;  and  in 
fact  unless  the  name  is  known  to  be  one  or  the  other,  in  many 
instances,  it  cannot  be  determined.  With  the  knowledge,  there- 
fore, that  a centre  was  Semitic,  and  also  that  the  dynasty  was 
Semitic,  we  have  reason  to  infer  that  many  of  the  personal  names, 
even  though  written  in  Sumerian,  were  actually  Semitic.  The 
same  is  true  of  the  names  of  temples,  ziggurrats,  and  deities.  Ne- 
Uru-Gal,  “Nergal,”  is  the  name  of  a deity  in  a Sumerian  garb, 
but  we  know  the  deity  was  Semitic. 

The  names  of  the  temples  of  every  city,  Akkadian  as  well  as 
Sumerian,  appear  with  Sumerian  names  in  the  inscriptions.  This 
is  true  even  in  Amorite  lands,  for  example,  the  temples  at  Aleppo, 
Harran,  Tirqa,  etc.,  bore  Sumerian  names.  It  is  impossible  to 
explain  this  at  the  present  time  in  any  other  way  than  that  it  was 
due  to  the  fact  that  the  Semites  had  used  the  language  and  script 
of  the  Sumerians  at  a very  early  time,  of  course,  prior  to  our 
earliest  records.  From  this  we  get  the  impression  that  we  are  far 
from  the  point  of  having  clear  ideas  as  to  where  and  when  the  Sem- 
ites first  used  the  Sumerian  cuneiform  for  their  language. 

Naturally,  these  are  problems  which  can  only  approach  solution 
after  more  is  known  about  the  written  language  of  the  Semitic 
peoples  other  than  the  Semitic  Babylonian,  from  whom  the  latter 
came.  At  present,  absolutely  nothing  is  known  of  any  Semitic 
script  except  the  Babylonian,  prior  to  the  earliest  known  Phoe- 

1 See  Grice,  Chronology  of  the  Larsa  Dynasty,  YOR  IV  1. 


22 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  THE  AMORITES. 


nician  and  Aramaic  alphabetic  writing,  and  this  is  dated  from 
about  1000  B.  C.  Semites  in  Cappadocia  already  used  in  the  third 
millennium  B.  C.  what  we  have  been  regarding  as  the  Babylonian 
language  and  script.  A few  tablets  found  in  middle  Mesopotamia 
indicate  that  in  the  early  part  of  the  second  millennium  the  Baby- 
lonian script  was  used  there.  And  of  course  the  Amarna  letters 
and  the  Hittite  tablets  show  that  the  language  and  script  were 
used  throughout  the  land  in  the  latter  half  of  the  second  millen- 
nium B.  C.,  not  only  for  Semitic  tongues  but  non-Semitic  as  well. 

These  and  other  considerations  make  us  conclude  that  many  of 
the  problems  involved  are  far  from  solution  at  the  present  time. 
We  may  ultimately  find  that  the  Semites  had  adopted  their  system 
of  cuneiform  writing  before  they  settled  in  the  valley ; or  that  they 
did  not  have  a written  language  for  a period  after  they  entered 
the  valley,  until  the  Sumerians  invaded  and  became  masters  of  the 
land ; or  we  may  find  that  the  Semites,  bringing  with  them  their 
culture,  invaded  the  land  already  occupied  by  the  Sumerians,  upon 
whom,  however,  they  were  dependent  for  their  written  language, 
and  from  which  contact  their  own  system  of  writing  evolved.  The 
Sumerian  being  the  parent  script  and  perhaps  for  a time  the  only 
one  used  by  the  Semitic  Babylonians,  it  is  not  difficult  to  under- 
stand how  its  use  was  very  much  more  extensive  in  the  early  period 
than  the  script  which  had  evolved  from  it. 

While  these  questions  cannot  be  solved,  the  writer,  in  view  of  the 
increased  light  upon  the  situation  covering  investigations  of  a 
series  of  years,  inclines  more  and  more  to  the  view  that  the  Semitic 
elements  that  have  been  absorbed  in  the  culture  we  regard  as  Baby- 
lonian, are  much  more  numerous  than  is  usually  recognized;  and, 
moreover,  that  although  the  names  of  temples,  gods  and  individ- 
uals appear  in  a Sumerian  garb,  this  is  no  proof  that  they  are  not 
Semitic. 

Zimmern  in  his  Busspsahnen  admitted  that  the  penitential 
psalms  may  represent  translations  from  the  Semitic  Babylonian 
into  Sumerian,  and  that  there  were  no  certain  criteria  for  deter- 
mining whether  a text  was  of  Sumerian  or  Babylonian  origin. 
Prince  in  his  Materials  for  a Sumerian  Lexicon  also  takes  the  posi- 
tion that  many  of  the  Sumerian  texts  are  really  “translations  of 


I.  INTRODUCTION. 


23 


Semitic  ideas  by  Semitic  priests  into  the  formal  religious  Sume- 
rian language.”  The  late  American  scholar,  Rudolph  Brhnnow, 
in  letters  published  some  years  ago  by  Halevy  (RA  18,  259  ff.), 
took  the  position  that  all  the  so-called  bilingual  texts  revert  to 
Babylonian  originals.  He  inclined  to  the  view  that  the  Semites 
were  the  original  inhabitants  of  the  valley,  and  that  the  Sumerians, 
on  entering,  largely  adopted  the  civilization  they  found  in  the  land. 
He  did  not  maintain  that  the  origin  of  the  civilization  was  Semitic, 
but  that  it  was  a product  due  to  the  amalgamation  of  these  two 
races,  in  which  the  Semitic  element  predominated,  and  eventually 
gained  supremacy. 

The  thought  expressed  by  these  writers,  that  much  of  the  Sumero- 
Akkadian  literature  that  has  been  handed  down  is  Semitic  and  not 
Sumerian,  seems  perfectly  reasonable  in  the  light  of  all  that  is 
known.  Even  as  regards  the  religious  texts  the  knowledge  that 
the  writing  was  confined  to  the  scribe  or  priest,  makes  it  reason- 
able to  infer  that  the  formulae  which  were  intended  to  invoke  the 
deities  or  charm  the  spirits  would  be  couched  in  a form  more  or  less 
unintelligible  to  the  pious  Semitic  applicant.  The  religious  and 
intellectual  leaders  were  in  this  way  able  to  awe  their  clients  and 
keep  them  dependent  upon  them  by  using  a language  that  was 
unintelligible. 

Eduard  Meyer  is  also  of  the  opinion  that  the  Semites  occupied 
the  land  prior  to  the  entrance  of  the  Sumerians,  who,  he  holds, 
settled  in  southern  Babylonia,  drove  the  Semites  northward,  and 
occupied  their  old  cult  centres.  He  bases  his  argument  on  the  fact 
that  the  monuments  show  that  the  Sumerians  represented  their 
gods  with  abundant  hair  and  long  beards,  while  they  themselves 
shaved  their  heads  and  faces ; also  that  the  garments  they  repre- 
sent their  gods  as  wearing  are  different  from  those  of  the  people. 
Since  gods  are  usually  depicted  wearing  the  same  costume  as  man, 
it  must  follow  that  the  image  of  the  gods,  as  regards  their  hair  and 
dress,  must  have  been  according  to  the  pattern  shown  them  by  their 
predecessors,  whom  Meyer  thinks  were  the  Semites.  To  be  con- 
sistent, Meyer  would  have  to  admit  that  the  primitive  and  uncul- 
tured Semite  must  have  dressed  well ; and  that  the  Sumerian,  who 
had  the  genius  for  art,  was  dependent  upon  him  at  least  for  these 


24 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  THE  AMORITES. 


marks  of  liis  civilization.  This  reminds  ns  of  the  well-dressed 
Amorites,  whom  the  Egyptian  artist  depicted  in  the  tomb  of  Beni- 
Hassan  (see  Chapter  XIV). 

The  question  as  to  whether  the  Semites  or  the  Sumerians  first 
occupied  the  land  of  Babylonia,  is  here  irrelevant.  Suffice  it  to 
know  that  in  the  earliest  history  known,  we  find  both  present  in 
Sumer  as  well  as  in  Akkad. 

In  this  connection,  it  seems  fitting  to  discuss  briefly  the  keeping 
distinct  or  differentiating  between  what  is  Akkadian  or  Semitic 
Babylonian  and  what  is  West  Semitic.  In  answer  to  the  criticism 
of  Bold,2  who  takes  issue  with  the  thesis  presented  in  Amurru  on 
the  ground  that  it  does  not  keep  separate  these  elements,  which 
difference  the  Babylonians  themselves,  as  early  as  the  time  of 
Hammurabi,  clearly  recognized,  it  is  only  necessary  to  rehearse 
what  is  clearly  set  forth  in  Amurru  the  Home  of  the  Northern  Sem- 
ites. 

The  title  of  this  thesis  implies  that  the  home  of  the  Semites  who 
are  regarded  as  the  northern  branch  of  the  Semitic  family,  is  in 
the  lands  west  of  Babylonia ; that  the  people  from  this  region 
migrated  to  the  Euphrates  valley,  and  in  time  were  called  Akkad- 
ians ; that  periodically,  after  the  civilization  of  the  earliest 
invaders,  influenced  by  the  Sumerians,  had  been  developed  into 
what  is  peculiarly  known  as  Akkadian,  there  were  invasions  or 
migrations  during  the  succeeding  millenniums  that  brought  addi- 
tional people  from  the  same  region  into  the  valley.  We  are  deal- 
ing with  millennia.  The  civilization  under  these  conditions,  after 
a century  or  two,  would  be  sufficiently  removed  from  what  it  was 
originally,  so  that  the  people  who  came  afresh  from  the  old  centres 
would  be  recognized  as  foreign.  The  distinction,  naturally,  would 
be  more  pronounced  in  centres  where  Sumerian  influences  were 
greater. 

Each  Babylonian  city,  as  we  know,  represented  a principality, 
and  each  had  its  temple  and  school  of  scribes  which  was  distinct 
from  other  schools.  The  different  appellations  of  the  same  sun- 
deity  of  the  Semites  can  only  be  accounted  for  in  this  way.  The 
hundreds  of  names  of  deities  written  in  Sumerian  show  that  as  a 
rule  it  was  customary  to  write  them  ideographically,  and  that  the 


2 Kanaanaer  und  Hebr'der,  p.  39. 


I.  INTRODUCTION. 


25 


ideograms  selected  were  often  descriptive  of  the  god’s  attributes; 
as  for  example,  dEn-lil,  “Lord  of  the  storm”;  dEn-amas,  “Lord 
of  the  fold”;  or,  as  indicative  of  the  god’s  origin,  dEn-Din-tirki, 
“Lord  of  Babylon.”  It  can  scarcely  be  thought  possible  that  all 
the  gods’  names  in  Sumerian  were  in  common  usage  pronounced 
as  written,  for  example : dNin-a-dam-asag-ga,  dNin-igi-zi-bar-ra, 
dUmun-bad-urudu-nagar-ki,  etc.  Other  ideographically  written 
names  of  deities,  however,  even  though  originally  not  intended  to 
be  pronounced  as  such,  for  example,  dNe-Uru-gal,  perhaps  “light 
of  the  great  Uru,”  dAmar-Utug,  a syncretistic  formation,  dEn-lil 
“lord  of  the  storm,”  dNin-gal  “great  lady,”  etc.,  in  time  were 
called  or  pronounced  Nergal,  Marduk,  Ellil,  and  Nikkal  respec- 
tively. The  actual  name  of  the  deity  En-lil,  however,  may  have 
been  Adad,  Shara,  Ura,  or  some  other  name  of  the  storm-deity.  In 
other  words,  the  ideogram  itself  in  some  instances  was  pronounced 
and  came  into  use,  and  even  displaced  the  original  name  of  the 
deity. 

It  is  understood  that  dNin-Gir-Su,  Lady  of  Girsu,  at  Telloh,  was 
a deity  similar  if  not  identical  with  dNin-IB  at  Nippur.  The  name 
of  the  latter  we  now  know  was  pronounced  Inurta  or  Inmashtu  in 
the  late  period  (see  Chapter  XVII).  It  would  not  be  surprising 
to  learn  that  dNin-Gir-Su  originally  was  simply  another  ideogram 
used  at  Telloh  for  the  same  name  Urta  or  Inurta.  Doubtless,  the 
ideogram  dNin-Marki  and  many  others  were  originally  the  same. 
At  Umma  the  name  of  the  deity  Shara  was  perhaps  without  any 
exception  written  in  that  city  with  the  sign  Lagab  with  igi-gunu, 
inserted,  and  yet  there  are  reasons  for  holding  the  view  that  Shara 
was  a very  common  name  or  element  found  in  the  appellations  of 
deities  and  temples,  not  only  in  Babylonia  but  in  Amurru  (see 
Chapter  XVII,  and  MI  p.  14).  While  most  of  the  several  thousand 
names  of  Babylonian  deities  appear  in  Sumerian  dress,  from  the 
few  whose  actual  pronunciation  we  now  know  we  have  reason  for 
believing  that  the  origin  of  a very  large  number  of  the  ideograph- 
ically written  names  in  Sumerian  was  Semitic. 

As  an  illustration,  let  us  think  of  the  original  Semites  entering 
Babylonia  from  Amurru  with  their  deity  ’Amor  ( ’Amur—  ’Awur= 
’TJru).  In  a thousand  years,  under  circumstances  referred  to 
above,  not  only  could  the  name  have  suffered  modifications,  but 


26 


THE  EMPIRE  OP  THE  AMORITES. 


the  conception  of  the  deity  as  well.  Even  in  Amurru,  during  the 
thousand  years  under  different  influence,  the  conception  of  the  deity 
as  well  as  the  pronunciation  of  its  name  may  have  suffered  modi- 
fication, so  that  there  would  be  quite  a gap  between  this  cult  of  the 
peoples  living  in  Babylonia  and  the  newcomers.  In  other  words, 
we  must  look  upon  the  Semites,  who  had  originally  entered  Baby- 
lonia from  the  wide  area  of  Amurru,  as  having  modified  under  other 
influences  their  religious  conceptions.  Different  names  for  their 
storm-deity  had  in  the  meanwhile  arisen  in  the  different  centres 
occupied  by  Semites,  which,  as  was  said,  were  more  or  less  distinct 
from  each  other  and  under  different  influences.  In  other  words, 
in  a thousand  years,  under  influences  of  this  kind,  a culture  would 
have  developed  quite  distinct  from  what  had  previously  been 
brought  into  the  land.  With  these  conditions  in  mind,  it  is  quite 
understandable  that  the  priests  and  the  guild  of  scribes  would  look 
upon  the  fresh  influx  of  Amorites  as  foreigners,  and  as  possessing  a 
cult  quite  distinct  from  their  own.  The  same  was  true  with  refer- 
ence to  personal  names ; for  example,  the  name  Ishme-Dagan 
was  originally  Amorite,  and  was  pronounced  Jashma’-Dagan  in 
Amurru,  but  it  had  long  been  Babylonized  and  pronounced  Ishme- 
Dagan.  Wlien,  however,  fresh  invasions  brought  men  bearing  the 
name  into  the  country  the  difference  in  the  pronunciation  was 
noted,  for  the  scribes  wrote  Ja-as-ma-’-dDa-gan.  In  other  words, 
in  a generation  or  so  the  foreign  Semites  were  more  or  less  Baby- 
Ionized,  or  were  absorbed  completely  by  the  Akkadians ; and  if 
there  were  no  fresh  influx,  foreign  names  either  gave  way  to  Akka- 
dian, or  the  nomenclature  gradually  ceased  to  show  any  distinction 
in  the  pronunciation.  This  is  shown  by  a study  of  the  names  in  the 
period  of  the  Cassite  dynasty,  which  followed  that  of  the  West 
Semitic  Larsa,  Nisin,  and  Babylon  dynasties,  when  Amorite  names 
abounded.  In  the  Cassite  period,  owing  to  the  inactivity  of  the 
Amorites,  West  Semitic  names  very  generally  disappeared.  The 
cult  of  the  individual  family  was  doubtless  given  up  for  that  of 
the  land,  with  which  it  had  much  in  common. 

The  distinction,  therefore,  as  to  what  is  West  Semitic  and  what 
is  Akkadian,  was  clearly  made  in  Amurru  (in  spite  of  the  asser- 
tion of  Bohl,  mentioned  above),  and  is  kept  in  mind  throughout 
this  discussion. 


II. 

THE  HOME  OF  THE  SEMITES 

There  are  those  who  hold  the  view  that  the  Semites  and  the 
Hamites  were  originally  one  race,  and  lived  in  Northern  Africa, 
whence  the  Semites  passed  over  into  Arabia,  and  from  there  were 
dispersed.  The  view,  however,  that  Arabia  was  the  original  home 
of  the  Semites  is  generally  accepted  by  scholars.  The  Semites 
that  are  found  in  other  lands  surrounding  Arabia  are  regarded 
simply  as  successive  migrations  of  Arabs  that  have  deposited  them- 
selves layer  upon  layer  in  those  lands.  The  migrations,  due  to 
over-population,  have  recurred  periodically.  We  are  told  that 
Arabia  breeds  vast  numbers  of  its  nomad  tribes,  hut  it  can  not 
support  them ; that  a thousand  years  was  required  to  fill  Arabia  up 
to  the  point  when  it  could  no  longer  sustain  its  inhabitants,  and  in 
consequence  they  migrated  to  adjacent  lands.  With  slight  varia- 
tions this  ‘stock’  theory  has  been  used  by  a succession  of  writers. 
They  tell  us  that  the  first  migration  of  which  we  have  knowledge 
brought  the  Semites  into  Babylonia.  The  second  migration  is 
represented  by  the  Semitic  outbursts  on  Palestine  between  2500  to 
2000  B.  C.,  and  accounts  also  for  the  Semitic  invasion  of  Babylonia 
when  the  rulers  of  the  First  Dynasty  of  Babylon  controlled  the 
land ; this  theory,  however,  has  recently  been  modified.  The  third 
periodical  disgorging  of  Arabia  is  known  as  the  “Aramaean  migra- 
tion,” when  the  land  again  “spat  out.”  Some  hold  that  this 
migration  began  near  the  middle  of  the  second  millennium  B.  C., 
and  others  that  they  first  moved  out  in  the  thirteenth  century.  This 
migration  took  the  Aramaeans  into  Syria  and  Mesopotamia,  and 
their  kindred  tribe,  the  Hebrews,  into  Palestine.  The  next  so- 
called  “spilling  over”  period,  or  “sporadic  wave  of  hungry  tribes- 
men,” was  from  the  fifth  century,  when  the  Nabataeans  moved  upon 
Petra.  And  the  last  is  when  Islam  invaded  Western  Asia  and 
parts  of  Europe.  In  nearly  every  work  that  is  examined  on  the 
history  of  Semitic  peoples,  some  form  of  these  statements,  making 
Arabia  the  cradle  of  the  Semites,  or  making  all  Semitic  peoples 
come  from  Arabia,  is  found. 


(27) 


28 


THE  EMPIRE  OE  THE  AMORITES. 


One  of  the  earliest  writers  to  have  maintained  that  Arabia  was 
the  primitive  home  of  the  Semites  was  the  German  scholar 
Sprenger  who  in  his  Das  Leben  und  Lehre  des  Mohammed  (1861, 
241  ff.),  and  in  later  works,  maintained  that  agriculturists  do  not 
become  nomads,  and  that  all  Semites  are  Arabs.  Sayce,  as  early 
as  1872,  declared  that  the  Semitic  traditions  all  point  to  Arabia  as 
the  original  home  of  the  race ; it  is  the  only  part  of  the  world  which 
has  remained  exclusively  Semitic.  The  racial  characteristics — 
intensity  of  faith,  ferocity,  exclusiveness,  imagination — can  best  be 
explained  by  a desert  origin.  Schrader,  De  Goeje,  Wright,  and 
Meyer,  were  other  writers  who  held  similar  views.1 

The  periodical  wave  theory  seems  to  have  been  originated  by 
Winckler  who  in  his  Geschichte  Babyloniens  und  Assyriens  says : 
“The  home  of  the  Semites  was  Arabia,  due  to  geographical  consid- 
erations and  to  the  fact  that  the  purest  Semites  are  at  present 
found  in  that  land.  The  migrations  are  due  to  over-population 
and  recur  periodically.  He  said,  “we  have  definite  knowledge  of 
four  main  Semitic  migrations  northward.”  These  are  in  reverse 
order : 1.  The  Arabian,  which  began  in  the  seventh  century  A.  D., 
and  culminated  in  the  conquest  of  Islam ; 2.  the  Aramaic,  from  the 
fifteenth  to  the  thirteenth  century  B.  C. ; 3.  the  Amorite,  a thousand 
years  earlier,  2400-2100  B.  C.,  and  4.  another,  a thousand  years 
earlier  when  Babylonia  was  settled  by  the  Semites. 

This  thousand  year  disgorging  theory  has  been  adopted  by  many 
English  and  American  writers.  In  Paton’s  words:  “Thus  it 
appears  that  it  took  a thousand  years  each  time  to  fill  Arabia  up 
to  the  point  when  it  could  no  longer  hold  its  inhabitants  but  must 
disgorge  them  upon  the  adjacent  lands.”  In  addition  to  the  four 
migrations  assumed  by  Winckler,  Paton  adds  the  so-called  earlier 
Nabataean,  which  is  placed  as  beginning  about  500  B.  C.2 

Barton  in  his  Semitic  Origins  (1902)  developed  the  Arabian 
theory  in  a more  elaborate  manner  than  previously  had  been  done. 
Even  though  one  does  not  agree  with  the  position  taken  by  Barton, 
he  cannot  help  admiring  his  full  and  thorough  treatment  of  the 
subject.  Not  only  does  he  look  upon  Arabia  as  the  cradle-land  of 

1 For  the  literature  on  the  subject,  see  Barton.  Semitic  Origins. 

- Early  History  of  Syria,  p.  7,  211,  etc. 


II.  THE  HOME  OF  THE  SEMITES.  29 

the  Semites,  but  upon  North  Africa  as  the  place  of  the  ultimate 
origin  of  the  Hamito-Semitic  races,  which  he  claims  are  kindred. 
After  the  migration  of  the  Semites  into  Arabia,  some  of  their 
Hamitic  brethren,  who  until  then  had  been  nomads,  displaced  the 
Negroids  in  the  valley  of  the  Nile,  learned  agriculture,  and  formed 
the  race  of  the  Egyptians.3  His  arguments  for  Arabia  being  the 
home  of  the  Semites,  follow:  1.  Semites  are  now  in  Arabia  and  in 
contiguous  lands,  Babylonia,  Syria,  Abyssinia,  etc.,  lands  more 
fertile  than  Arabia,  in  which  agriculture  has  been  practised  from 
time  immemorial.  2.  During  the  historic  period,  wave  after  wave 
of  Arabs  has  been  pouring  from  Arabia  into  the  surrounding  lands ; 
it  is  probable  that  the  migration  has  always  been  that  way,  and  not 
vice  versa.  3.  It  may  be  regarded  as  a law  of  social  progress 
that  nomads  pass  from  a sterile  to  a fertile  country,  and  become 
agriculturists ; but  not  from  a fertile  to  a sterile  country,  and 
change  from  agriculturists  to  nomads.  It  is  inconceivable,  if  Sem- 
ites originated  in  a land  more  fertile  than  Arabia,  that  they  should 
have  migrated  thither.  4.  The  Arabic  language,  where  the  race 
has  been  protected  by  deserts,  has  preserved  the  characteristics  of 
primitive  Semitic  speech  much  more  fully  than  any  other  Semitic 
tongue.  5.  The  Arabs,  better  than  other  Semites,  have  preserved 
the  racial  characteristics  of  ferocity,  exclusiveness,  intensity  of 
faith,  and  imagination. 

In  his  review  of  these  successive  waves,  Luckenbill  also  adopted 
the  theory.  He  said  the  first  wave  from  the  desert  of  Arabia  to 
the  north  took  the  Babylonians  of  the  Dynasty  of  Sargon  about 
2500  B.  C.  into  the  Euphrates  valley,  and  they  were  perhaps  the 
founders  of  Phoenicia.  The  next  wave  brought  the  First  or  Ham- 
murabi Dynasty  into  Babylonia,  and  the  Canaanites  into  Canaan. 
The  next  took  the  Aramaeans  into  Syria  and  Mesopotamia,  and 
their  kindred  tribes,  the  Hebrews,  Amorites,  Moabites  and  Edom- 
ites, into  Palestine  ca.  1500  B.  C.4 

3 This  latter  view  is  supported  with  linguistic  evidence  by  Barton  in 
JAOS  35  214  ff. 

4 Biblical  World  1910,  p.  22;  and  AJSL  28  p.  154.  It  is  only  fair  to 
Luckenbill  to  state  that  in  an  article  which  recently  appeared  ( AJT  1918, 
p.  30),  he  accepts  the  view  that  the  Hammurabi  Dynasty  is  West  Semitic. 


30 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  THE  AMORITES. 


Macalister  is  another  writer  who  has  accepted  these  ‘stock’ 
views  as  facts.  He  says:  “for  though  Arabia  may  breed  vast 
numbers  of  its  nomad  tribes  it  cannot  support  them;  and  though 
the  struggle  for  existence  may  be  diminished  artificially  by  the 
inhabitants,  by  means  of  intertribal  battles  and,  in  ancient  times, 
of  infanticide,  yet  a time  comes  periodically  when  necessity  forces 
its  surplus  population  to  overrun  the  more  fertile  neighboring 
lands.  The  country,  as  has  been  noticed,  comes  into  prominence 
historically  every  thousand  years,  more  or  less.”  ( Civilization  in 
Palestine,  p.  27.) 

Although  regarding  the  origin  of  the  First  Dynasty  as  Amorite, 
King  nevertheless  looks  upon  Arabia  as  the  cradle  of  the  Semites. 
He  traces  four  great  Semitic  migrations.  The  first  settled  North- 
ern Babylonia;  the  second,  which  was  the  Canaanite  or  Amorite, 
took  place  in  the  third  millennium  B.  C.  The  third  was  the 
Aramaean  in  the  fourteenth  century,  which  established  its  kingdom 
in  Syria  with  its  capital  at  Damascus ; and  the  fourth  took  place  in 
the  seventh  century  of  our  era  (EB  p.  125). 

It  would  serve  no  purpose  to  multiply  quotations  from  writers 
who  share  these  views.  Suffice  it  to  repeat  what  is  said  above,  that 
most  scholars  have  accepted  these  periodical  waves  of  emigration 
from  Arabia  as  historical  facts. 

It  is  not  the  writer’s  purpose  to  discuss  or  attempt  to  decide 
between  contending  scientists  concerning  the  ultimate  origin  and 
gradual  formation  of  the  Semitic  race,  its  separation  from  the 
so-called  Hamito-Semitic  race,  the  millenniums  required  to  develop 
the  striking  racial  difference,  the  conditions  under  which  Semitic 
characteristics  developed,  and  all  other  anthropological  inquiries 
concerning  the  origin  of  Semitic  society.  The  writer  has  waded 
through  masses  of  conjectures  on  these  points,  based  almost 
entirely  upon  hypotheses,  such  as  Anthropologists  must  largely 
confine  themselves  to,  but  he  prefers  to  base  his  own  conclusion 
alone  upon  historical  or  archaeological  data  and  traditions ; which 
of  course  leaves  untouched  the  ultimate  origin  of  this  race. 

Arabia  is  a land  of  great  contrasts.  One-half  of  the  country  is 
composed  of  sandy  deserts,  with  wide  areas  of  shifting  sand,  where 
water  is  difficult  to  obtain,  and  famine  is  always  imminent.  In 


II.  THE  HOME  OF  THE  SEMITES. 


31 


many  of  these  parts  it  is  only  after  the  spring  rains  that  the  soil 
furnishes  a meagre  subsistence  for  the  Bedouin.  It  should  be 
noted,  however,  that  there  is  a river  system  which  includes  the 
region  of  the  wadies;  but  the  rivers  never  reach  the  sea.  These 
in  midsummer  are  dry.  In  such  sterile  places,  no  permanent  settle- 
ments can  be  looked  for.  Elsewhere,  there  are  great  and  small 
oases.  Then  there  are  extensive  fertile  highlands  and  pastures. 
In  the  great  tropical  districts  on  the  coast  of  the  Red  Sea,  the 
Indian  Ocean,  the  Persian  Gulf,  and  in  Southern  Arabia,  the  land 
of  frankincense,  myrrh,  coffee,  spices,  and  perfumes,  there  is  natu- 
rally all  that  is  required  for  a great  civilization.  The  same  is  true 
also  of  the  mountainous  districts  of  Arabia. 

The  question  arises  in  this  connection,  was  the  climate  of  Arabia 
in  ancient  times  the  same  as  to-day?  Hommel,  who  has  made  a 
careful  study  of  the  work  of  the  explorers  of  Arabia,  says:  “It  is 
safe  to  assume  that  in  ancient  times  there  was  much  more  water 
than  at  present.”5  Ellsworth  Huntington  maintains  that  great 
changes  in  the  climate  of  Central  Asia  have  taken  place  during 
historic  times.  He  has  shown  how  great  tracts  of  territory  which 
at  one  time  were  populated  are  at  the  present  desert,  or  mitigated 
desert,  which  supports  vegetation  only  part  of  the  year.  He  tells  us 
that  “Syria  and  Northern  Arabia,  from  three  to  five  hundred  miles 
south  of  Lake  Gyoljuk,  present  phenomena  almost  identical  with 
those  of  Central  Asia.  Mr.  F.  A.  Norris,  a member  of  the  Prince- 
ton Expedition  to  that  region  in  1904-5,  states  that  a large  number 
of  ruins  lie  in  the  desert  in  a location  where  to-day  there  is  no  ade- 
quate water  supply,  and  where  it  would  he  impossible  to  secure 
sufficient  water  with  the  system  of  irrigation  employed  when  the 
ruined  cities  were  in  their  prime.  Elsewhere  the  water  which 
appears  formerly  to  have  supported  oases  is  now  saline.  The  ruins 
date  from  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  Era.  ’ ’ (The  Pulse  of  Asia 
367  f.)  This  change  of  climate,  Huntington  claims,  has  been 
observed  to  have  taken  place  also  in  the  Sinaitic  Peninsula,  and 
even  in  Egypt. 

If  the  desert  portion  of  Arabia  in  ancient  times  was  less  sterile 

5 “Arabia,”  in  Explorations  in  Bible  Lands  694  ff. 


32 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  THE  AMORITES. 


than  at  present,  and  the  wadies,  which  are  so  clearly  defined  in  cer- 
tain parts  of  the  land,  contained  water  for  at  least  the  greater  part 
of  the  year,  one  can  readily  understand  how  tribes  with  great  flocks 
would  pass  into  this  country  even  from  the  north.  It  is  only  nec- 
essary to  take  into  consideration  the  fact  that  great  Bedouin  tribes 
at  present  occupy  these  sterile  districts  in  the  seasons  of  the  year 
when  rains,  for  the  time  being,  restore  fertility;  after  which  they 
move  to  other  parts  where  subsistence  is  possible. 

As  history  has  made  us  acquainted  with  the  fact  that  in  the 
earliest  period  there  were  permanent  cities  or  habitations  of 
peoples  engaged  in  agricultural  pursuits,  the  question  as  to  whether 
the  nomad  preceded  the  agriculturist,  or  vice  versa,  belongs  to  the 
sphere  of  anthropology.  Moreover,  history  and  tradition  make  us 
acquainted  with  a great  nation,  including  nomadic  tribes  in  the 
northern  regions  of  the  Semitic  world  in  the  earliest  period  known; 
and  what  is  still  more  to  the  point,  movements  of  the  people  east- 
ward into  Babylonia,  and  of  the  nomadic  tribes  southward  into 
Arabia. 

The  fact  that  the  Arabic  language  preserves  more  fully  the  char- 
acteristics of  primitive  Semitic  speech,  it  seems  to  the  writer,  as  it 
has  to  others,  is  evidence  only  of  the  fact  that  Arabia  was  settled 
by  Semites  prior  to  the  time  when  the  Semitic  languages  with  which 
we  are  familiar  had  suffered  decay,  or  rather  such  modifications 
as  usually  follow  the  development  of  civilization.  The  language  of 
Arabia,  even  at  the  present  time,  three  thousand  years  later  than 
the  period  to  which  the  earliest  South  Arabian  inscriptions  belong, 
can  be  said  to  have  retained  many  of  the  characteristics  of  primi- 
tive Semitic  speech  which  the  other  Semitic  languages  had  lost 
millenniums  ago.  The  conditions  of  life  in  Arabia  are  responsible 
for  the  permanency  not  only  of  language  but  also  customs  and 
manners,  which  fact  is  so  well  understood.  In  the  great  centres 
along  the  Euphrates,  in  Aram,  or  along  the  Mediterranean,  which 
were  not  isolated,  as  in  Arabia,  development  was  more  rapid.  As 
an  illustration,  the  English  language  of  several  centuries  ago  is 
better  preserved  in  parts  of  England  less  affected  by  such  metropo- 
lises as  London.  The  most  primitive  French  spoken  at  the  pres- 
ent time  is  not  heard  in  Paris,  but  in  isolated  districts,  which  have 
seen  the  least  development.  It  seems  to  the  writer  that  the  lin- 


II.  THE  HOME  OP  THE  SEMITES. 


33 


guistic  argument,  so  frequently  used  in  support  of  the  theory  of 
the  Arabian  origin,  needs  no  refutation. 

In  connection  with  the  argument  that  exclusiveness,  intensity  of 
faith,  imagination  and  ferocity  are  all  racial  characteristics  of  the 
Semites,  and  that  Arabs  have  better  preserved  them,  it  need  only 
be  said,  if  this  is  correct,  that  the  climate  and  other  existing  condi- 
tions are  responsible  for  the  pronounced  character  of  these  pecu- 
liarities of  the  Arabs. 

The  argument  based  upon  the  so-called  waves  of  migration  is  the 
one  which  is  so  cogently  pressed  by  the  advocates  of  the  theory, 
and  is  fortunately  the  one  we  can  fully  test  by  history  and  tradition. 
To  do  so,  it  is  necessary  to  ascertain,  as  the  first  step  to  be  taken, 
what  characteristic  features  of  civilization  we  can  take  cognizance 
of  that  are  peculiar  to  the  Arabian. 

Owing  to  the  conditions  prevailing  in  Arabia,  little  more  than 
cursory  explorations  have  been  possible,  and  these  have  often  been 
conducted  under  most  trying  circumstances.6  Nevertheless,  during 
the  past  century  there  has  been  a rich  gathering  of  inscriptions, 
dating,  as  some  scholars  hold,  from  about  1000  B.  C.,  while  others 
maintain  even  an  earlier  date.  A great  antiquity,  however,  for 
Arabian  civilization  must  be  assumed.  Perhaps  the  earliest  ref- 
erence to  the  land  in  the  Babylonian  inscriptions  is  found  in  an 
omen  tablet  and  in  the  Neo-Babylonian  Chronicle  which  record  the 
successful  expedition  of  Naram-Sin  against  the  land  of  Magan,  and 
the  taking  of  its  king  captive,  whose  name  was  Mannu-dannu. 
(King  Chron.  II  51  f.)  Magan  is  regarded  by  some  as  being  in 
the  Sinaitic  Peninsula ; but  by  others  as  a part  of  Eastern  Arabia, 
which  region  is  more  accessible  to  Babylonia.  A little  later,  Gudea 
mentions  having  transported  heavy  blocks  of  diorite  from  Magan 
(VB  I p.  66,  etc.). 

The  Arabian  inscriptions,  above  referred  to,  came  from  four 
chief  nations,  the  Minaeans,  Hadhramotians,  Qatabanians  and  the 
Sabaea-Himyarites.  It  is  by  the  help  of  these  inscriptions  that 
considerable  knowledge  of  ancient  Arabia  has  been  gained.  For 
the  present  discussion  of  the  Arabian  theory  let  us  note  some  of 
the  names  of  the  chief  gods  contained  in  these  inscriptions,  as  well 

8 See  Hommel,  “Arabia,”  in  Explorations  in  Bible  Lands. 


34 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  THE  AMORITES. 


as  the  composition  of  the  personal  names,  in  order  to  test  the  claim 
that  the  civilization  of  the  Amorites,  Hebrews  and  Babylonians  had 
its  origin  in  Arabia. 

The  chief  deity  in  these  inscriptions  is  the  god  ‘Athtar,  who  is 
the  personification  of  both  the  morning  and  evening  stars.  It  is 
generally  thought  that  the  god  ‘Athtar  and  the  goddess  Ashirta  or 
Ishtar  were  originally  the  same  deity.  Some  hold  that  Athtar 
was  the  earlier  form,  but  see  Chapter  XVII.  The  second  deity  in 
importance  is  the  moon-god,  who  has  a different  appellation  among 
each  of  the  four  peoples  mentioned.  The  Minaeans  called  him 
Wadd;  the  Hadhramotians  called  him  Sin  (doubtless,  borrowed 
from  the  Western  Semites)  ; among  the  Qatabanians  he  was  named 
‘Amm;  and  by  the  Sabaeans,  Ilmaqqali  or  Almaqu-hu.  The  third 
deity  of  the  South  Arabian  pantheon  was  called  An-Kurah  by  the 
Minaeans,  Huwal  or  Hoi  by  the  Hadhramotians,  and  Anbay 
(regarded  the  same  as  Nabu)  by  the  Qatabanians.  Sun  deities, 
who  are  always  goddesses,  usually  with  local  names,  tutelary 
deities  of  cities  such  as  Ta’lab  of  Riyarn,  the  god  Sami‘,  Nasr, 
Qainan,  Ramman  in  Sliibam  (doubtless,  to  be  identified  with  the 
Rinmion  of  Damascus,  or  Ramman  of  the  Babylonians),  Hagir, 
Dhu-Samwa,  Dhaw,  Motab-Natiyan,  Niswar,  II  Faklir,  Zur,  are 
some  of  the  prominent  deities  mentioned  in  the  inscriptions.7  In 
short,  these  South  Arabian  inscriptions  offer  considerable  material 
on  the  deities  of  the  land.  And  from  our  knowledge  of  the  per- 
manency of  the  manners  and  customs  of  the  land  it  is  safe  to  con- 
jecture that  in  the  periods  preceding  that  of  these  inscriptions  the 
religion  very  likely  was  in  a general  way  practically  the  same. 
The  study  of  the  personal  names  as  an  adjunct  of  the  religious 
ideas  expressed  in  the  inscriptions  furnishes  also  valuable  criteria, 
since  they  indicate  what  deities  the  people  worshipped. 

It  is  scarcely  possible  that  any  one  would  regard  the  moon-god 
Sin  as  of  Arabian  origin  because  the  inscriptions  show  that  he  was 
worshipped  by  the  Hadhramotians,  and  because  his  name  is  prob- 
ably connected  with  the  mountain  called  Sinai  and  with  the  desert 

7 See  Hommel  “Arabia,”  in  Explorations  in  Bible  Lands,  733  ff.,  and 
Pilter  “Index  of  the  .South  Arabian  Proper  Names,”  PSBA,  1917,  99-112, 
115-132. 


II.  THE  HOME  OF  THE  SEMITES. 


35 


called  Wilderness  of  Sin.  And  it  is  scarcely  possible  that  any  one 
would  regard  Nabu  as  Arabian  because  of  the  name  of  the  god 
Anbay,  worshipped  by  the  Qatabanians,  who  is  considered  by  some 
to  be  the  same.  Hadad,  whose  name  occurs  in  two  inscriptions, 
would  scarcely  be  regarded  otherwise  than  an  importation.  In 
short,  there  can  be  no  question  but  that  these  three  gods  are  West 
Semitic  (see  Chapter  XVII). 

We  have  seen  that  if  movements  of  peoples  have  taken  place, 
there  will  be  unmistakable  evidence  of  them  in  case  large  groups 
of  personal  names  have  been  preserved ; and  that  in  the  absence  of 
definite  historical  statements  concerning  conquests,  invasions, 
bondages,  etc.,  no  better  evidence  is  known  than  that  secured  from 
a study  of  the  personal  names.  Having  before  us  the  elements  of 
the  ancient  Arabic  civilization  that  we  should  expect  would  be 
carried  with  the  people  if  they  migrated,  as  has  been  claimed,  as 
did  the  Amorites,  Hittites,  Cassites,  etc.,  we  inquire  to  what  extent 
have  those  which  are  peculiarly  Arabic  been  transported  to  the 
other  lands,  in  these  so-called  five  periodical  waves  of  migration. 
The  burden  of  the  proof,  naturally,  that  such  evidence  exists,  and 
that  these  waves  actually  took  place,  lies  with  those  who  hold  these 
views ; nevertheless,  let  us  inquire  whether  there  are  any  grounds 
upon  which  these  hypotheses  can  rest. 

In  searching  for  evidence  in  the  Babylonian  inscriptions  and  other 
legends  bearing  on  the  early  history  of  that  land,  we  first  note 
that  the  legendary  list  of  ante-diluvian  kings  of  Chaldea  handed 
down  by  Berossus,  shows  that  the  names  are  Amorite8  (see  Chapter 
VIII).  The  early  dynastic  lists,  as  we  shall  see,  show  the  same. 
In  the  votive  inscriptions,  the  religious  texts,  the  building  inscrip- 
tions, the  seal  impressions  on  tablets,  etc.,  we  look  in  vain  for 
anything  that  is  characteristically  Arabian.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  influence  from  Amurru,  whose  civilization  is  as  old  if  not  older 

8 Syncellus  gives  two  dynasties  after  the  flood,  the  first  he  designates  as 
Chaldean,  and  the  second  Arabian ; the  names  of  the  latter  are : MapSo/cerr^s, 
MapSa/cos,  2t<rtp,op8a/cos,  Na/?ios,  Ilapawos,  Na/Jowra/Jos.  It  is  thought  by  Some 
that  this  list  is  spurious  serving  the  purpose  of  filling  out  the  gap  between 
the  deluge  and  the  first  king  of  Assyria.  See  Poebel  UMBS  IV  87.  Cer- 
tainly they  cannot  be  proved  to  be  Arabian. 


36 


THE  EMPIBE  OP  THE  AMOBITES. 


than  Babylonia,  is  much  in  evidence  in  the  earliest  historical  period 
(see  the  succeeding  chapters). 

In  turning  to  the  nomenclature  of  the  Babylonians  of  the  early 
period,  alphabetically  almost  the  first  names  that  confront  us  are 
those  compounded  with  Abu,  “father,”  and  Ahu,  “brother,” 
which  are  used  instead  of  the  name  of  a deity.  Hommel,9  followed 
by  Pilter,10  Paton,11  and  others,  regard  these  elements  as  of  South 
Arabian  origin.  The  writer  sees  no  reason  whatever  for  regard- 
ing them  otherwise  than  as  common  Semitic.  Moreover,  while 
Alin  is  a very  common  element  in  Babylonian  names,  in  fact  in  the 
Name  Syllabary  published  by  Chiera  over  one  hundred  and  fifty 
different  names  are  compounded  with  it,  and  it  is  found  in  nearly 
a score  of  different  West  Semitic  names  in  the  Old  Testament,  as 
far  as  is  known  to  the  writer,  it  has  thus  far  only  been  found  once 
in  the  South  Arabian  inscriptions  of  all  periods.12 

Some  have  been  disposed  also  to  look  upon  ‘Amm  or  Hammu, 
‘paternal  uncle,’  as  Arabian;  but  even  this  seems  to  have  been 
generally  given  up,  which  is  due  to  the  fact  that  it  is  so  frequently 
met  with  in  the  West  Semitic  inscriptions,  especially  in  the  early 
period  (see  Chapter  XI). 

The  only  attempt  known  to  the  writer  at  identifying  an  unmis- 
takable Arabian  deity  as  an  element  in  names  found  in  Babylonia 
is  in  the  case  of  wedum  in  Ahi-ivedum.  Pilter,  apparently,  follow- 
ing Ranke  (PA  63)  reads  Ahi-wadum,  and  translates  “My  brother 
is  Wadd.  ” To  show  that  this  is  impossible  it  is  only  necessary  to 
quote  other  names  constituted  with  this  element  wedum-  or  edu 
usually  translated  “the  one,”  as  Wedum-liblut,  Samas-ivedum- 
usur,  Tabba-ivedi,  Tabba-edi,  etc.  (see  Chiera  TJMBS  11,  158).  In 
short,  after  searching  for  elements  that  can  be  said  to  be  charac- 

0 Ancient  Hebrew  Traditions. 

10  PSBA  1916,  153  f. 

11  Biblical  World  XLY,  p.  291.  Paton  also  regards  sumu,  “name,”  and 
the  imperfect  of  verbs  formed  with  the  prefix  ya  as  characteristic  marks  of 
Arabian  Origin. 

12  Even  Pilter,  who  regards  the  names  of  the  Old  Testament  compounded 
with  Aim  as  Arabian  says:  “Aklii  meets  us  in  the  South  Arabian  inscrip- 
tions but  rarely;  there  is  Akhukarib”  PSBA  38  p.  156. 


II.  THE  HOME  OF  THE  SEMITES. 


37 


teristic  of  Arabian  civilization,  no  other  conclusion  can  be  arrived 
at  but  that  they  are  wanting. 

In  this  connection  it  is  proper  to  inquire  what  Hebrew  tradition 
has  to  say  on  the  subject.  The  Hebrews  looked  upon  Mesopotamia, 
or  the  district  between  the  Tigris  and  the  Euphrates,  as  the  cradle 
of  mankind.  They  also  made  the  second  beginning  of  man’s  his- 
tory to  emanate  from  Armenia,  in  which  country  the  ark  rested. 
It  is  an  interesting  coincidence  that  many  Aryan  scholars  look 
upon  this  region  as  the  probable  home  of  the  Sanskrit  group  of 
languages. 

The  writers  of  the  table  of  nations  in  the  tenth  and  eleventh 
chapters  of  Genesis,  in  giving  a history  of  the  family  which  became 
the  nation  Israel,  felt  the  necessity  of  accounting  for  the  divisions 
of  mankind  after  the  flood,  and  of  showing  how  the  peoples  were 
related.  The  sons  of  Aram,  the  descendant  of  Shem,  are : Uz,  Hul, 
Gether,  and  Mash.  Hul  and  Gether  have  not  been  identified  as  yet, 
but  Uz  is  understood  to  represent  the  peoples  of  Job’s  fatherland 
in  Arabia,  not  far  east  from  Edom;  and  Mash  represents  the  dis- 
trict of  Mashu,  in  which  was  the  important  city  Ki-Mashki,  or 
Damascus  (see  Chapter  XII).  If  Uz  has  been  correctly  identified 
in  North  Arabia,  we  have  here  at  least  a distinct  effort  on  the  part 
of  the  Biblical  writer  to  account  for  the  Arabians. 

Another  descendant  of  Shem,  Arpachsliad,  begat  Eber,  whose 
sons  were  Peleg  and  Joktan.  Thirteen  sons  of  Joktan  are  men- 
tioned, who  are  understood  to  represent  peoples  of  Arabia.  In 
other  words,  we  have  here  another  effort  by  the  Biblical  writers  to 
account  for  the  origin  of  the  Arabian  nations.  Their  view  is  that 
they  emanated  from  the  north. 

The  descendants  of  Peleg  are  given  as : Reu,  Serug,  Nahor, 
Terah,  and  Abram.  Sarug,  or  Serug,  is  found  to  have  been  the 
name  of  a district  in  the  land  of  Aram;  and  Nahiri,  or  Nahor,  is 
close  by  Serug  (see  Chapter  XI).  Here  the  writer  places  the 
home  of  the  Hebrews,  following  the  former  current  view. 

It  is  needless  to  refer  to  the  fact  that  modern  criticism  does  not 
regard  the  tenth  chapter  of  Genesis  or  any  other  similar  effort  in 
the  Old  Testament  as  having  any  historical  value  as  regards  the 
origin  of  the  races.  No  one  would  question  that  the  separation  of 
the  peoples  referred  to  took  place  at  a time  very  far  removed  from 


38 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  THE  AMORITES. 


the  historical  period.  But  it  must  be  conceded,  at  least,  that  the 
writer  or  writers  looked  upon  the  Aramaeans  as  one  of  the  nations 
of  a great  antiquity ; and  that  the  view  of  these  writers  was  that 
Arabia  was  populated  by  people  from  the  north.  What  traditions 
they  possessed,  upon  which  their  views  were  based,  we,  of  course, 
are  unable  to  say.  It  would  seem,  however,  that  their  opportunity 
for  knowing  at  least  something  about  the  early  history  of  the  Ara- 
maeans, that  is,  their  own  ancient  history,  was  at  least  greater  than 
that  enjoyed  by  those  modern  scholars  who  begin  the  history  of 
Abram  and  the  Hebrews  with  the  exodus  of  the  Aramaeans  from 
Arabia,  or  even  Egypt,  in  the  latter  half  of  the  second  millennium 
B.  C.  The  theories  advanced  from  this  point  of  view,  which  are 
developed  in  a wonderfully  ingenious  manner,  of  course,  do  not 
recognize  even  a modicum  of  truth  in  these  legends  concerning  the 
patriarchal  home  in  Aram.  Such  views  are  maintained  in  spite 
of  the  fact  that  history,  archaeology,  and  philology  have  restored 
for  us  the  background  for  a Semitic  civilization  in  this  region  with 
an  antiquity  very  much  earlier  than  the  period  of  the  conquest; 
and  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  nothing  has  been  revealed  to  substan- 
tiate their  theories.  There  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  when 
the  time  arrives  for  the  ruin-hills  of  this  district  to  be  opened  up, 
we  shall  become  acquainted  not  only  with  a civilization  as  ancient, 
if  not  more  so,  than  any  known  at  present,  but  also  much  evidence 
to  show  that  in  the  traditions  handed  down  by  the  Hebrew  writers 
there  are  reflections  of  great  value  for  the  reconstruction  of  the 
history  of  the  Northern  Semites. 

The  second  wave  of  Arabs  which  is  supposed  to  have  brought  the 
Semitic  population  to  Palestine,  in  the  second  half  of  the  third 
millennium,  and  a great  influx  into  Babylonia  at  the  time  of  the 
First  Dynasty  of  Babylon,  has  received  more  attention  largely 
because  of  the  excavations  in  Palestine  and  the  great  mass  of 
inscriptions  found  in  Babylonia  belonging  to  this  period. 

The  theory  that  the  rulers  of  the  First  Dynasty  of  Babylon  were 
of  Arabian  origin,  which  for  a time  many  were  wont  to  adopt,  orig- 
inated with  the  French  scholar,  Pognon  (JA  XI,  543),  who  merely 
suggested,  as  early  as  1888,  that  the  dynasty  might  be  either  of 
Arabic  or  of  Aramaic  origin.  Two  years  later  Sayce  called  atten- 
tion to  the  name  Ammi-zaduga,  the  tenth  ruler  of  the  First 


II.  THE  HOME  OF  THE  SEMITES. 


39 


Dynasty,  as  occurring  in  the  South  Arabic  inscriptions;  and  he 
seemed  to  think  that  some  of  the  names  of  the  First  Dynasty  of 
Babylon  were  Arabian.  Hommel,  to  whom  the  elaboration  of  the 
theory  is  due,  later  tried  to  show  that  all  the  names  were  Arabian ; 
but  he  admitted  at  the  time  that  he  thought  ‘ ‘ both  Hammurabi  and 
his  successors  must  have  assumed  Canaanitish  names  either  for 
political  reasons  with  a view  to  conciliating  their  Canaanite  sub- 
jects, or  possibly  because  they  had  married  Canaanite  wives  and 
thus  condescended  to  show  their  love  for  them.”  ( Hebrew  Tradi- 
tion, p.  92.)  Winckler,  however,  maintained  that  eight  of  the 
eleven  names  are  Canaanite,  while  two,  Apil-Sin  and  Sin-muballit, 
are  Babylonian,  leaving  Zabium  uncertain  ( Geschichte  Israels 
130  ff . ) . The  view  that  the  First  Dynasty  rulers  were  Canaanites 
or  Amorites,  now  seems  to  prevail,  and  that  they  were  of  Arabian 
origin  seems  to  have  been  given  up. 

Hommel  also  maintained  that  many  of  the  foreign  names  occur- 
ring in  Babylonian  inscriptions  of  this  period  were  also  Arabian 
(Ibid.  110  ff.).  Banke,  in  his  Personal  Names  of  the  Hammurabi 
Dynasty,  fully  discussed  the  question  of  the  Arabian  origin  of  the 
foreign  names.13  One  can  not  help  admiring  Ranke  in  attempting 

13  The  hypochoristic  atu  attached  to  masculine  as  well  as  to  feminine 
names,  because  of  numerous  examples  found  in  the  Safaitic  inscriptions 
is  regarded  by  him  as  a characteristic  mark  of  their  Arabic  origin.  But 
most  of  the  names  to  which  this  ending  is  attached  are  Babylonian.  This 
ending  is  also  found  in  the  Cassite  period,  when  little  foreign  Semitic 
influence  was  felt  in  Babylonia.  Moreover,  the  names  of  the  Safaitic 
inscriptions,  having  an  affixed  t,  with  which  they  were  compared,  belong 
to  the  period  of  our  Christian  era,  from  the  second  to  the  four  century, 
or  later.  The  score  and  a half  of  other  names,  which  are  compared  with 
these  Safaitic  names,  must  be  looked  upon  in  the  same  light.  And  besides, 
many  of  the  elements  are  found  in  the  Northwest  Semitic  inscriptions; 
which  fact,  however,  Ranke  noted.  Nor  can  the  comparison  of  about  a 
dozen  names  with  those  taken  from  Ibn  Doraid  (of  the  ninth  century  A.  D.) 
be  taken  seriously  in  this  connection.  This  leaves  eight  of  Ranke’s  list 
which  he  compared  with  South  Arabic  names ; two  of  these,  Nakarum  and 
Tinkarum,  are  compared  with  Jinkar,  said  to  be  an  Arabic  tribal  name.  Four 
others,  Abi-esuh,  Ammi-zaduga,  Jadah-ilu,  and  Jadah-halum,  are  compared 
with  Arabic  names,  but  these  are  also  well  known  North  Semitic  elements. 


40 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  THE  AMORITES. 


to  defend  his  teacher’s  theory,  but  on  close  examination  the  stabil- 
ity of  the  whole  contention  vanishes  like  the  morning  mist. 

Not  only  are  the  rulers  of  the  First  Dynasty  considered  Amorite, 
but  also,  as  will  be  shown  later,  the  contemporaneous  dynasties 
of  Larsa  and  Nisin,  and  perhaps  also  of  Erech  (see  Chapter  VIII), 
for  West  Semitic  foreigners  also  sat  on  these  thrones.  And  is 
there  any  evidence  of  Arabic  influence  in  the  literature  of  this  era  ? 
As  far  as  is  known  to  the  writer  no  trace  of  it  has  thus  far  been 
observed. 

What  is  true  of  Babylonia  is  also  true,  as  shown  above,  of  Assyria 
about  this  time,  for  the  early  rulers  also  bear  West  Semitic  names 
(see  Amurru,  p.  140).  It  is  interesting  to  note  here  that  King 
has  recently  commented  on  this  point,  in  the  words:  “We  may 
assume  that  Assyria  received  her  Semitic  population  at  about  this 
period  as  another  offshoot  of  the  Amorite  migration.”  ( HB 
136  f.) 

Unfortunately  up  to  the  present  time  no  inscriptions  from  the 
Northwest  Semitic  peoples  belonging  to  this  period  have  been 
found,  except  the  cuneiform  tablets  in  Cappadocia.  We  therefore 
inquire  whether  there  is  any  evidence  to  be  gathered  from  the  Cap- 
padocian inscriptions  for  the  supposed  Arabic  migration  in  the 
latter  part  of  the  third  millennium.  The  answer  is  in  the  negative. 
Instead  of  Arabic,  we  find  Amorite  or  West  Semitic  elements  much 
in  evidence  in  their  personal  names,  such  as  the  gods  Ashir  or 
Ashur,  Asliirta,  Shamash,  Amur,  Anu,  etc.  (see  Chapter  XII). 

It  has  been  asserted  that  the  Semites  who  dispossessed  the  trog- 
lodytes at  Gezer,  in  this  period,  were  Arabs.  This  is  an  assump- 
tion pure  and  simple.  The  Amorites  flourished  in  the  Lebanon 

This  leaves  Raibum,  which  was  compared  with  Ra’ab  and  Ra’ab-el,  and 
Zamzum,  compared  with  Shams,  the  name  of  the  sun-goddess.  The  latter 
comparison  needs  no  comment,  and  the  former  is  a Hebrew  name,  cf. 
Ra-’-a-bi-el,  BE  IX  44: 16  LE.  In  a note,  two  names  which  he  later  pub- 
lished (BE  VI,  2),  Jasmah-el  and  Jaskur-ilu,  are  compared  with  ‘WED* 
and  The  former,  however,  is  also  an  Amorite  name,  and  the 

latter  the  writer  cannot  find  in  Pilter’s  index  of  names,  PS  BA  39,  99  ff. 
It  should  be  noted  that  Ranke  also  suggests  a comparison  of  the  elements 
sumu  with  the  South  Arabic  HOD  ; zimrl  with  "W7 ; and  islil  with  . 


II.  THE  HOME  OF  THE  SEMITES. 


41 


region  millenniums  prior  to  this  era,  and  geographically  Canaan 
was  a part  of  Amurru  in  this  period  (see  later  Chapters).  More- 
over, the  Semites,  whose  existence  in  Palestine  has  been  noted 
through  the  excavations,  are  very  probably  Amorites.  This  seems 
highly  probable  when  we  take  into  account,  as  noted  above,  that 
about  this  time  three  different  Amorite  dynasties  had  been  estab- 
lished in  Babylonia;  that  Amorites  had  possession  of  Assyria; 
and  that  it  is  not  impossible  that  Amorites  were  responsible  for  the 
dark  period  in  Egyptian  history  which  also  synchronizes  with  this 
period.  Since  we  have  no  evidence  whatever  of  an  Arabian  move- 
ment at  this  time,  it  seems  perfectly  reasonable  to  assume  that  the 
Semites,  who  dispossessed  the  cave-dwellers  at  Gezer  and  perhaps 
the  dwellers  on  other  hills  of  Palestine  at  this  time,  were  of  the 
same  stock,  namely,  Amorite. 

After  an  examination  of  the  eight  names  in  the  fourteenth  chap- 
ter of  Genesis,  Pilter  concludes  that  four  are  probably  Amorite: 
that  Bera4  is  an  Amorite  form  of  the  Arabic  bari‘  a;  that  Birslia4 
is  from  a quadriliteral  root  in  Arabic ; that  Shinab,  which  is  synon- 
ymous with  the  Babylonian  Sin-abu,  is  Arabian;  and  that  ‘Aner, 
which  was  very  likely  ‘ Am-ner,  is  also  Arabian  ( PSBA  36,  212  ff.). 
Even  though  the  latter  conjecture  should  prove  correct,  for  which 
there  is  no  justification  in  any  of  the  different  forms  of  this  name 
in  the  versions,  ‘1mm  can  only  be  regarded  as  common  Semitic 
(as  above).  If  Shinab  is  a corruption  of  Sin-abu , the  name  can 
only  be  said  to  be  Babylonian.  Further,  no  such  personal  names 
as  Bera4  and  Birsha4  occur  in  the  South  Arabian  inscriptions. 
The  writer  thinks  that  it  will  be  generally  conceded  that  the  effort 
to  show  Arabian  influence  by  these  names  is  not  very  successful. 

The  name  Abram,  or  in  the  fuller  orthography,  Abraham,  which 
for  years  has  been  regarded  by  certain  scholars  as  Arabic,  is  not 
found  in  the  Arabian  inscriptions.  On  the  other  hand,  both  ele- 
ments of  the  name  have  been  found  in  the  West  Semitic  and  in  the 
Babylonian  inscriptions.  About  a decade  ago  Ungnad  found  the 
name  Abram  ( A-ba-ra-ma , A-ba-am-ra-am,  A-ba-am-ra-ma) , but 
recently  Lutz  found  the  fuller  form  on  a letter  in  the  Yale  Babylo- 
nian Collection,  namely,  A-ba-ra-lia-am  ( EBL  p.  5),  which  was 
written  in  the  era  of  the  patriarch. 


42 


THE  EMPIRE  OP  THE  AMORITES. 


Here  also  properly  might  be  mentioned  the  Biblical  tradition 
concerning  the  descendants  of  Ishmael,  the  son  of  Abraham  by 
Hagar,  in  accounting  for  the  Bedouin,  who  with  a primitive  and 
patriarchal  mode  of  life  roamed  over  the  deserts  lying  between 
the  Sinaitic  Peninsula  and  the  Persian  Gulf.  He  was  the  father  of 
twelve  princes  or  tribes  Avho  dwelt  from  Havilah  unto  Shur,  i.  e., 
before  Egypt  “as  thou  goest  towards  Assyria”  (Gen.  25;  13-18). 
Plere  also  the  tradition  concerning  the  sex  sons  of  Keturah,  the 
second  wife  of  Abraham,  representing  Arab  tribes  south  and  east 
of  Palestine,  might  be  mentioned.  These  can  only  be  regarded  as 
traditions  which  indicate  that  the  Hebrew  writer  understood  that 
the  Aramaeans  from  the  north  had  settled  Arabia.  The  Midian- 
ites  also  are  regarded  as  the  half  brothers  of  Isaac  and  Ishmael. 

The  third  periodical  “disgorging”  period,  according  to  Winck- 
ler,  Paton,  Luckenbill,  and  others,  is  the  so-called  Aramaean,  which 
began  about  1500  B.  C.,  and  lasted  for  several  centuries.  Before 
this  time  it  is  claimed  that  no  trace  of  the  Aramaeans  is  found  on 
the  monuments ; the  first  sure  sign  of  them  in  the  Egyptian  monu- 
ments is  the  name  Darmeseq  for  Damascus  in  a list  of  Ramses  III 
(1198-1167  B.  C.).  No  credence,  as  noted  above,  is  placed  in  the 
Biblical  tradition  concerning  the  ancestral  home  of  the  patriarchs 
in  Aram.  The  conclusion  follows  that  this  is  a mistaken  theory 
that  was  foisted  upon  Israel  in  the  late  period,  and  accepted  by 
them.  The  people  we  know  as  the  tribes  of  Israel  are  regarded 
by  some  as  Arabs,  who  came  out  of  Arabia,  and  by  others  as  Ara- 
maean nomads  who  lived  in  the  desert  south  of  Canaan,  known  by 
the  collective  name  of  ‘Abraham.’  About  1200  B.  C.,  they  invaded 
and  conquered  Palestine.  They  had  no  higher  culture  of  their 
own,  but  adopted  that  of  the  people  they  conquered.  Isaac  and 
Jacob  also  were  clans,  not  individuals.  While  there  are  those  who 
believe  that  an  ‘Abraham’  people  united  with  a ‘Sarah’  people 
and  entered  Canaan  as  early  as  2000. B.  C.,  the  ‘Isaac’  and  ‘Rebe- 
kah’  tribes  were  later  waves  of  Aramaean  migration  which 
absorbed  the  Abraham  and  Sarah  people.  The  third  wave  was 
‘Jacob,’  and  the  fourth  wTas  ‘Israel.’  Leah,  which  name  means 
“cow,”  and  Rachel,  “sheep,”  are  merely  collective  names  for 
the  ‘cowboys’  and  ‘shepherds,’  two  main  groups  of  tribes  that 
entered  Canaan  from  the  south  and  east  respectively.  Since  the 


II.  THE  HOME  OF  THE  SEMITES. 


43 


discovery  that  there  was  a country  named  Musri  in  North  Arabia, 
it  is  claimed  by  some  that  Misraim,  ‘Egypt,’  was  confused  with 
it,  and  that  this  is  the  place,  i.  e.,  Musri  in  Arabia,  whence  the 
Hebrews  migrated.  Others  hold,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  there  was 
a Goshen  in  South  Palestine,  that  what  is  known  as  Israel  entering 
Palestine  was  a movement  of  some  tribes  from  South  to  North 
Canaan.14  There  are,  however,  scholars  who  still  believe  that 
Israel,  or  at  least  a part  of  the  people,  lived  in  Egypt. 

The  evidence  for  this  so-called  Aramaean  migration  from  Arabia, 
which  overflowed  Syria  and  other  countries  at  this  time,  as  far  as 
the  writer  can  ascertain,  is  confined  to  the  references  to  the  people 
called  Habiri  in  the  Amarna  letters,  and  to  the  conquest  of  Pales- 
tine by  the  people  we  know  as  the  Hebrews.  There  may  have  been 
other  archaeological  or  historical  evidences  offered  for  the  “dis- 
gorging” of  Arabia  at  this  time,  but  the  writer  is  unacquainted 
with  them. 

If  the  Hebrews  came  out  of  Arabia  at  this  time,  it  certainly  would 
seem  that  at  least  some  hints  of  such  a movement  would  be  found 
in  the  mass  of  literature  about  this  period  which  they  have  handed 
down.  There  is  not  a particle  of  evidence  to  substantiate  the 
idea  that  this  movement  was  from  Arabia;  and  it  seems  to  the 
writer  wholly  unnecessary  to  discuss  extensively  this  question  until 
such  has  been  produced.  The  story  of  Israel  in  Egypt,  which  land 
we  know  received  so  many  obscure  tribes,  its  sojourn  in  Goshen, 
the  building  of  store  chambers  with  sun-dried  bricks,  the  references 
to  the  Nile  and  to  Egyptian  life  at  court  and  in  the  home,  the  per- 
sonal names  of  individuals,  everything  has  the  proper  coloring  and 
is  entirely  true  to  what  is  known  of  the  land.  Not  only  is  the 
atmosphere  correct  in  the  account  of  the  people’s  residence  there, 
but  also  the  references  to  Egypt  after  they  had  departed  and  lived 
in  the  wilderness,  to  which  the  narrator  frequently  looks  back. 
With  the  story  of  the  sojourn  in  Egypt  and  in  the  wilderness  in 
our  possession,  and  in  the  absence  of  even  a single  hint  of  any  other 
origin  for  the  Hebrews  who  entered  Canaan,  the  proof  of  the  asser- 
tions, which  are  so  often  set  forth  as  historical  facts,  rests  with 

14  For  a review  of  the  literature  on  Israel’s  conquest  of  Canaan,  see 
Paton,  JBL  32,  p.  1 f.  (1913). 


44 


THE  EMPIRE  OE  THE  AMORITES. 


those  who  make  them.  The  present  writer,  until  archaeological 
or  philological  evidence  is  forthcoming  to  show  that  the  contrary 
is  correct,  is  content  to  hold  the  view  that  the  Hebrews,  with  the 
civilization  they  possessed,  would  not  have  accepted  in  the  succeed- 
ing centuries  such  an  account  of  the  humiliating  origin  of  their 
nation,  if  it  had  not  been  fact. 

The  writer  is  cognizant  of  how  modern  criticism  regards  the 
genealogical  lists  in  Chronicles  as  well  as  in  other  books  of  the  Old 
Testament.  Those  in  Exodus,  Leviticus,  Numbers,  Deuteronomy, 
and  Joshua,  with  their  hundreds  of  other  details,  may  be  looked 
upon  in  the  same  general  way ; and  yet  if  the  Hebrews  are  of  Ara- 
bic origin,  it  seems  that  there  would  be  some  trace  of  this  fact 
found  in  these  lists,  especially  as  the  nomenclature  cannot  be  said 
to  he  that  of  a period  of  the  later  or  dual  kingdom.  We  peer  in 
vain  for  those  characteristic  marks  of  what  we  know  to  be  pecu- 
liarly Arabian.  It  is  quite  reasonable  to  infer  that  the  Hebrews 
who  came  out  of  Egypt  and  who  lived  in  the  Sinaitic  Peninsula  for 
a time  should  have  intermarried  with  the  dwellers  of  that  region; 
and  it  would  not  be  in  the  least  surprising  to  find  in  the  nomencla- 
ture that  they  handed  down  such  constituent  elements  in  their 
names  as  would  conclusively  show  such  contact  with  the  Arabs ; 
as,  for  example,  we  have  so  well  illustrated  in  the  Murashu 
Archives,  found  at  Nippur,  where  the  contact  the  Hebrews  had  with 
the  Babylonians  and  Persians  through  intermarriages  is  so  appar- 
ent in  the  personal  names.  Even  this  has  not  been  pointed  out  by 
those  who  hold  the  Arabian  theory,  as  far  as  is  known  to  the  writer. 

If  this  so-called  ‘Aramaean  invasion’  received  its  name  from 
the  fact  that  the  Hebrews  who  entered  Canaan  are  Aramaeans, 
the  designation  is  that  of  the  Biblical  tradition,  for  it  regards 
them  as  such.  If,  however,  it  is  understood  that  these  Aramaeans 
are  Arabs,  who  by  reason  of  the  crowded  condition  of  Arabia,  as 
has  been  claimed,  came  forth  from  that  land,  the  term  is,  to  say 
the  least,  confusing.  Aram  is  not  in  Arabia. 

The  identification  of  the  Habiri  with  the  Hebrews,  made  simul- 
taneously in  1890,  soon  after  the  discovery  of  the  Amarna  tablets, 
by  both  Conder  and  Zimmern,  has  been  ever  since  the  subject 
of  considerable  discussion.  Not  a few  scholars  have  inclined 
toward  this  view  in  one  form  or  another.  Some  claimed  that  they 


II.  THE  HOME  OF  THE  SEMITES. 


45 


represent  the  Hebrews  entering  Palestine ; others,  that  they  rep- 
resented a portion  of  the  people  that  left  Egypt  in  advance  of  the 
main  body;  still  others  maintained  that  they  represented  roving 
bands  of  Hebrews  from  the  wilderness.  The  present  writer  for- 
merly inclined  to  the  view  that  the  Habiri  represented  the  Hebrews 
entering  Western  Canaan  under  Joshua,  because,  besides  other 
reasons,  the  chronology  of  this  event  synchronized  with  that  of  the 
Habiri  invasion.15 

The  fact  that  ‘Ibri  could  be  properly  reproduced  in  cuneiform 
as  Habiri,  together  with  other  considerations,  seemed  to  make  the 
view  appear  reasonable.  However,  certain  other  facts  make  it 
now  possible,  the  writer  feels,  to  explain  their  identity  in  another 
way;  namely,  that  the  Habiri  were  mercenaries  or  subjects  in  the 
service  of  the  Hittites,  perhaps  Aramaeans ; probably,  however, 
they  may  have  been  a branch  of  the  Hittite-Mitannian  peoples.16 

15  The  writer  in  1907  held  that  the  late  date  of  the  Exodus  based  upon 
the  excavations  of  Naville  at  ancient  Pithom  rests  upon  inconclusive 
grounds,  as  became  evident  from  his  own  account  of  the  excavations ; and 
that  Tliutmose  III  in  every  respect  fulfils  the  requirements  of  the  char- 
acter, etc.,  of  the  oppressor  portrayed.  The  name  of  the  city  called  Ramses 
in  the  Old  Testament,  which  was  called  Zoan  in  earlier  times,  very  probably 
was  known  by  this  name  when  the  account  was  written,  the  same  as  the  name 
of  the  land  in  which  Joseph  placed  his  father  and  brethren  (Gen.  47: 11). 
This  view  that  Ramses  II  was  not  the  Pharaoh  of  oppression  was  anticipated 
by  Ohr  several  years  earlier.  (See  Light  on  the  Old  Testament  from  Babel 
267  ff.) 

16  The  reasons  for  this  conjecture  are  found  in  the  writer's  Personal 
Names  of  the  Cassite  Period , p.  42  f.,  which  in  brief  are  the  following: 
Not  a few  letters  give  evidence  that  the  Habiri  were  identified  with  the 
Hittites  who  were  encroaching  upon  the  land  from  the  north.  The  dis- 
covery by  Winckler  that  in  the  Boghaz-koi  tablets  there  is  a list  of  deities 
which  had  ildni  ha-ab-bi-ri  “gods  of  the  habbiri”  written  at  the  close  of 
it,  and  in  a parallel  list  ildni  SA-GAS,  an  ideogram  standing  for  habbiri, 
and  a term  meaning  habbatu  “plunderers,”  shows  the  same.  Unfortu- 
nately, as  far  as  is  known  to  the  writer,  the  text  of  the  tablet  or  tablets  has 
not  been  published.  (More  recently  the  ideogram  SA-GAS  has  been  found 
on  temple  records  of  the  Larsa  Dynasty,  where  it  seems  to  refer  to  officials 
or  workmen  living  in  Babylonia.)  The  occurrence  of  several  personal 
names  found  in  Babylonian  tablets  of  the  Cassite  period,  which  can  be  iden- 


4:6 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  THE  AMORITES. 


In  the  Babylonian  tablets  of  the  Cassite  period,  besides  Hittite- 
Mitannian,  Cassite  names  prevail.  There  are  also  a few  Elamite 
names,  besides  small  groups  which  represent  other  peoples,  some  of 
which  at  present  cannot  be  determined.  The  occurrence  of  the 
foreign  names  in  the  nomenclature  of  this  period  indicates  either 
extensive  migrations  on  the  part  of  the  Hittite-Mitannian  and 
Cassite  peoples,  or  historic  events  of  considerable  importance, 
accounting  for  the  movement  of  these  peoples.  Naturally,  the  fact 
that  the  rulers  of  this  dynasty  were  foreigners  whom  we  call  Cas- 
sites,  accounts  for  the  royal  names  and  the  many  other  Cassite 
names.  The  presence  of  so  many  Hittite-Mitannian  names  is 
better  understood  when  we  take  into  account  the  fact  that  the  domi- 
nant people  in  the  Northwest  at  this  time  was  the  Hittite;  and 
that  the  Mitannian  people  had  taken  possession  of  Aram;  which 
is  evident  from  the  Amarna  letters,  and  from  other  sources.  There 
is  a striking  fact  to  be  noted  in  this  connection ; the  Amorite  names 
so  prevalent  in  the  nomenclature  of  the  previous  period,  namely 
that  of  the  First  Dynasty  of  Babylon,  have  very  generally  disap- 
peared,17 at  least  this  is  the  case  in  the  thousands  of  documents 
already  studied.  In  other  words,  migrations  of  the  Amorites  into 
Babylonia,  so  conspicuously  noticed  in  nearly  every  other  period, 
are  absent  at  this  time.  Foreign  Semitic  peoples  do  not  seem  to 
be  in  evidence  in  this  era.  And  in  particular,  it  should  be  added, 
the  influence  from  Arabia  in  this  period,  as  indicated  by  the  nomen- 
clature, is  nil,  at  least  as  far  as  has  been  observed.  If,  therefore, 
Arabia  was  sending  forth  at  this  time,  as  has  been  claimed,  one  of 
its  periodic  waves  of  hungry  tribesmen  into  the  more  favored 
regions  round  about,  they  must  have  avoided  Babylonia.  In  short, 
the  inscriptions  of  Babylonia  offer  no  more  evidence  of  a move- 
ment from  Arabia  at  this  time  than  can  be  shown  from  any  other 
source. 

titled  as  being  Hittite-Mitannian,  namely  Ha-bi-ri  Ha-bi-ir-si,  and  perhaps 
Ha-ba-ru,  point  to  the  probability  that  this  designation  was  identified 
in  some  way  with  those  peoples.  These  facts  make  it  reasonable  to  look 
upon  the  Habiri  not  as  Hebrews  from  the  desert,  but  as  being  peculiarly 
related  to  the  Hittites,  if  they  are  not  Aramaeans. 

17  See  Clay,  BE  XIY,  XV;  UMBS  II,  2;  and  PN. 


II.  THE  HOME  OF  THE  SEMITES. 


47 


Several  of  the  Amarna  tablets  speak  of  another  people  employed 
or  utilized  in  the  same  manner  as  the  Habiri,  namely,  the  Sutu. 
These  are  said  to  be  nomads  of  the  Syrian  Desert.  In  one  letter 
they  are  mentioned  with  the  Habiri  as  supporters  of  Namiawaza 
(No.  195) ; and  in  another,  Dagan-takala  appeals  to  be  delivered 
from  the  hand  of  the  Habiri  ( Sa-Ga-as ) “the  robber  people” 
( ameluti  ha-ba-ti),  and  the  Sutu  (No.  318).  Probably  the  Sutu 
were  Semitic  mercenaries,  and  the  Habiri  were  Hittite. 

In  connection  with  the  proposed  identification  of  the  Habiri 
with  Hittites,  attention  might  be  called  to  the  name  of  the  city  of 
Hebron,  where  the  children  of  Heth  lived,  and  from  whom  Abraham 
bought  the  cave  of  Machpelah.  The  name  of  the  city  in  Abra- 
ham’s time  was  Mamre,  and  it  is  also  referred  to  as  Kiryath-Arba. 
Later  it  was  called  Hebron.  It  is  not  impossible  that  the  name 
Hebron  ( Hebron ) is  a formation  on  on  ( =dn ) from  the  word 
Habir(i),  like  Shimshon  from  Shemesli.  Moreover,  the  city 
received  its  name  in  the  period  of  Hittite  ascendancy. 

The  so-called  Nabataean  or  fourth  wave  of  migration  need  not 
detain  us  long.  The  Nabataeans  are  a people  living  in  Edom  in 
the  latter  part  of  the  last  pre-Christian  millennium.  It  is  thought 
mar  Na-bat-ai  in  a letter  of  Ashurbanipal ’s  time  (Harper  ABL 
305),  refers  to  an  individual  from  this  nation,  whom  Streck  regards 
as  an  Aramaean.  Others  seem  to  think  mat  Na-ba-a-a-te  in  Ashur- 
banipal’s  Annals  refers  to  the  country  of  the  Nabataeans,  and  is 
perhaps  to  be  identified  with  Nabaioth,  the  son  of  Ishmael.  Gen. 
25 : 13.  It  will  be  noticed  that  at  least  two  of  the  few  names  identi- 
fied with  the  country  at  this  time,  namely  Ha-za-el,  the  father  of 
U-a-a-te-9,  king  of  Arabia,  and  Bir-Da-ad-da,ls  the  father  of 
U-a-a-te-’,  are  Aramaean;  perhaps  the  name  U-a-a-te -’  is  also 
Aramaean. 

The  extant  names  of  the  Nabataean  inscriptions  which  belong 
to  the  first  century  B.  C.,  it  is  claimed,  contain  more  Arabic  than 
Hebrew  and  Aramaic  names.  It  is  thought  that  the  Nabataeans 
pressed  upon  Edom  from  the  adjoining  land,  east  of  that  country, 
and  made  Petra  their  chief  city.  Even  though  it  could  be  shown 


18  Ashurbanipal ’s  Annals  VIII : 2. 


48 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  THE  AMORITES. 


that  the  majority  were  Arabs  who  used  the  Aramaean  language, 
this  fact  would  hardly  justify  the  statement  that  Arabia,  the  cradle 
of  the  Semites,  was  sending  one  of  its  thousand  year  periodic 
waves  over  the  surrounding  lands. 

No  one  would  deny  that  Islam  as  a military  power  in  the  seventh 
and  eighth  centuries  of  the  Christian  era  overran  the  Near  East, 
and  even  parts  of  Europe,  and  established  its  civilization  where- 
ever  it  went ; but  this  is  not  to  be  accounted  for  as  being  due  to 
Arabia  being  overcrowded,  but  because  of  lust  for  loot  and  power. 

No  one  would  attempt  to  deny  that  Semites  from  Arabia  have 
constantly  filtered  into  Syria.  Many  entered  to  range  during  cer- 
tain seasons  of  the  year,  like  the  ‘Anezeli  or  Ruwalla  peoples  at 
present,  or  as  the  Midianites  did  in  Biblical  times ; while  others 
naturally  were  attracted  to  the  cities  and  to  the  agricultural  dis- 
tricts. After  the  Jews  had  been  carried  into  exile,  the  Edomites 
pressed  into  their  lands  in  the  south  of  Judah.  Petra,  about  300 
B.  C.,  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  Nabataeans.  The  Decapolis  was 
created  as  a Greek  league  to  promote  interests  in  trade  and  com- 
merce, and  also  for  mutual  protection  from  the  surrounding- 
peoples.  In  the  first  century  of  our  era,  the  Beni  Jafna  migrated 
from  Yemen,  and  some  centuries  later  founded  the  Syrian  dynasty 
of  the  Ghassanides ; and  later  on,  Islam  overran  this  part  of  the 
world.  All  such  movements  towards  this  highly  delightful  and 
fertile  region,  called  “God’s  land”  by  Tliutmose  III,  were  per- 
fectly natural.  Peoples  came  from  all  directions.  But  neverthe- 
less the  origin  of  Semitic  life  in  Amurru  is  not  to  be  explained  as 
resulting  from  such  incursions.  We  have  knowledge  of  too  many 
other  movements  into  the  land,  as  the  Hittite,  Mitannian,  Philis- 
tine, etc.,  to  be  misled  with  such  a conception  of  the  land’s  history. 
Every  fact  bearing  upon  the  subject  in  the  early  references  to  the 
land  of  Amurru,  as  will  be  seen  in  subsequent  chapters,  points  to 
it  as  a home  of  the  Semite,  reaching  back  into  prehistoric  millen- 
niums, with  a civilization  of  no  mean  character;  and  indicates  also 
that  from  this  land  Semites  radiated  in  all  directions.  Moreover, 
as  stated  above,  the  ultimate  home  of  the  Semitic  race  belongs  to 
anthropology,  and  is  a question  which  there  is  no  desire  to  discuss. 

In  conclusion,  the  writer  simply  wishes  to  ask  those  who  continue 
to  maintain  this  theory  to  satisfy  themselves  as  to  why  the  fair 


II.  THE  HOME  OF  THE  SEMITES. 


49 


lands  of  Amurru  and  Akkad,  with  their  attractive  climates  and  fer- 
tile lands,  a veritable  ‘Garden  of  Eden,’  where  the  oldest  civili- 
zations of  which  we  have  knowledge  are  to  be  found,  should  have 
been  dependent  for  their  inhabitants  upon  such  a breeding  place 
as  Arabia.  In  short,  from  whatever  point  of  view  this  theory  is 
examined,  it  is  found  wanting. 


Ill 

THE  COUNTRY  AMURRU 


The  chief  lands  in  which  the  Semitic  peoples  of  ancient  times 
have  lived  are  located  in  that  great  parallelogram  roughly  bounded 
by  the  Taurus  Mountains,  the  Tigris  River,  the  Persian  Gulf,  the 
Indian  Ocean,  the  Red  Sea,  the  Isthmus  of  Suez,  and  the  Mediter- 
ranean. 

The  northern  part  of  this  territory,  known  as  Syria  and  Meso- 
potamia, is  fertile,  as  well  as  stretches  of  lands  along  the  coast  on 
the  lower  part  of  the  Red  Sea,  the  Gulf  of  Aden  and  part  of  the 
Persian  Gulf.  A considerable  portion  of  the  balance  of  the  terri- 
tory is  barren,  but  yet  it  is  dotted  here  and  there  by  small  and  large 
oases  of  great  fertility. 

The  only  time  this  great  stretch  of  territory  was  united  politi- 
cally was  when  Islam  dominated  it.  In  other  eras,  considerable 
districts  had  come  under  separate  rulers,  but  the  character  of  the 
land,  with  its  great  deserts,  and  mountainous  districts  separating 
one  part  from  another,  was  responsible  for  the  lack  of  amalga- 
mation or  cohesion  of  the  peoples,  and  for  the  breaking  up  of  the 
territory  into  separate  and  distinct  provinces. 

The  northern  part  of  this  great  Semitic  world,  at  present  called 
Syria  and  Mesopotamia  (or  El  Jezireh),  and  styled  ‘the  fertile 
crescent,’  lies  in  a peculiarly  central  position  between  Africa  and 
Asia,  as  it  were,  although  strictly  a part  of  Asia.  To  the  northwest 
was  Asia  Minor,  a gateway  to  great  nations  beyond — the  Hittites, 
Greeks,  Romans,  and  many  other  peoples.  To  the  north  lay  the 
Scythians,  and  other  nations  whose  influence  and  history  is  only 
slightly  known,  many  at  present  not  even  by  name.  The  Assyrians, 
Babylonians,  Persians,  Parthians,  and  other  great  peoples  lay  on 
the  east.  In  the  south  were  the  Arabs,  a people  of  the  same  race, 
also  the  Egyptians  and  Ethiopians ; and  on  the  west  the  Mediter- 
ranean. Syria  has  often  been  likened  to  a bridge  with  the  sea  on 
the  one  side  and  the  desert  on  the  other,  connecting  Western  Asia 

(50) 


III.  THE  COUNTRY  AMURRU. 


51 


and  Africa.  By  reason  of  its  position,  the  land  has  been  the  scene 
of  many  invasions  and  contending  armies  during  the  past  millen- 
niums of  its  history.  Here  the  Egyptians,  Amorites,  Hittites, 
Assyrians,  Babylonians,  Persians,  Greeks,  Romans,  Arabs,  Turks, 
and  other  peoples  have  contested  for  the  supremacy  of  the  land; 
the  last  effort  being  that  of  the  English  and  French  against  the 
Turk  and  German.  If  the  earlier  history  of  the  land  can  ever  be 
written,  doubtless  many  other  struggles  of  nations  on  this  battle- 
field will  become  known. 

Amurru,  with  its  diversified  features  of  snow-capped  mountains, 
tablelands,  fruitful  plains,  and  tropical  valleys,  accommodated 
besides  the  agricultural  and  pastoral  Semites  who  abode  in  houses 
and  tents,  various  races,  some  of  which  lived  even  in  caves  of  the 
earth.  In  this  way,  nature  fostered,  in  the  compass  of  this  region, 
people  of  the  mountains,  valleys  and  cities,  who  led  lives  which  had 
little  in  common.  As  a result,  cave-dwellers  lived  in  the  hills  of 
Palestine  to  a comparatively  late  date;  while  doubtless  the  agri- 
culturist and  the  Bedouin  had  flourished  in  the  valleys  and  plains 
about  them  for  millenniums.  Gradually,  however,  the  cave- 
dweller  was  supplanted  by  those  who  sought  the  hills  on  which  to 
build  fortified  places  or  walled  towns,  and  in  this  way  to  protect 
themselves  against  invaders. 

Phoenicia  and  the  cities  of  the  Lebanon  coast,  due  to  the  natural 
products  of  the  land,  were  especially  attractive  to  sea-faring 
peoples,  resulting  in  a great  admixture  of  races  that  produced  a 
peculiar  type,  whose  contributions  to  the  culture  of  the  ancient 
world  were  extensive.  Syria  with  its  Orontes,  Euphrates,  and 
other  rivers,  and  great  stretches  of  plains,  was  the  home  of  peoples 
reaching  back  into  a hoary  antiquity. 

The  conditions  from  a geographical  point  of  view  throughout  this 
part  of  the  Near  East,  are  supremely  favorable  for  an  extended 
and  continuous  occupation.  The  climate,  the  soil,  the  natural 
highways  offering  communication  in  all  directions,  all  suggest  the 
idea  that  it  was  a land  that  teemed  with  a great  population  in 
ancient  times.  Its  rivers,  lakes  and  seas,  its  mountains  and  its  cul- 
tivated hills,  where  the  vine  grows  in  terraces  and  the  olive  tree 
flourishes ; its  rich  plains  and  valleys,  all  make  it  a delightful  and 


52 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  THE  AMORITES. 


highly  desirable  land  in  which  to  live,  a veritable  land  “flowing* 
with  milk  and  honey.”  As  Cicero  said  in  one  of  his  orations,  the 
country  “is  so  rich  and  so  productive  that  in  the  fertility  of  its 
soil,  and  in  the  variety  of  its  fruits,  and  in  the  vastness  of  its  pas- 
ture lands,  and  in  the  multitude  of  all  things  which  are  matters  of 
exportation  it  is  greatly  superior  to  all  other  countries”  ( Manilian 
Law  VI). 


IV 

EXCAVATIONS  IN  AMURRTJ 

Excavations  have  not  been  conducted  as  yet  in  the  land  of  the 
Amorites  except  in  Palestine ; and  it  would  appear,  from  all  the 
light  that  we  have  on  the  subject,  that  this  is  the  least  important 
part  of  the  great  Empire  of  the  Amorites. 

The  story  of  the  excavations  in  Palestine  has  been  related  many 
times,  yet  it  seems  appropriate  in  this  connection  to  mention  briefly, 
in  a general  way,  some  of  the  important  results  that  bear  upon  the 
subject  under  discussion. 

At  Tell  el-Hesy,  which  lies  on  the  edge  of  the  Philistine  plain, 
the  lowest  stratum  is  thought  by  Petrie  and  Bliss,  who  excavated 
at  the  site,  to  represent  a period  about  1700  B.  C.,  and  the  upper- 
most about  400  B.  C.  The  city  is  referred  to  in  the  Amarna  letters, 
but  not  in  the  Egyptian  inscriptions.  It  was  taken  by  Joshua ; and, 
according  to  Chronicles,  was  fortified  by  Rehoboam.  Besides 
pottery  and  remains  of  walls,  buildings,  etc.,  a cuneiform  tablet 
written  in  the  Babylonian  language,  and  belonging  to  the  fifteenth 
century  B.  C.,  i.  e.,  the  Amarna  period,  was  found  in  its  ruins. 

The  city  Gezer  is  mentioned  on  the  Egyptian  monuments  as  one 
of  the  cities  taken  by  Thutmose  III,  about  1475  B.  C.  Three  of 
the  Amarna  letters  were  written  by  its  governor,  Japahi.  In  the 
book  of  Joshua  we  are  told. that  its  king,  and  the  men  with  him  who 
came  to  the  help  of  Lachish,  were  slain  by  Joshua.  In  the  excava- 
tions at  Gezer,  it  is  claimed  that  the  two  lowest  strata  are  earlier 
than  anything  found  at  Tell  el-Hesy,  and  belonged  to  the  Neolithic 
age.  Macalister,  who  conducted  the  excavations,  holds  that  the 
aboriginal  dwellers  were  non-Semitic,  of  small  stature;  and  that 
they  lived  in  caves.  He  thinks  that  the  probable  date  of  their 
troglodyte  dwellings  is  prior  to  2500  B.  C.  The  third  and  fourth 
strata  which  lie  immediately  above  are  shown  by  the  scarabs  con- 
tained in  them  to  belong  to  the  period  from  the  XII  to  the  XIX 
Dynasties,  i.  e.,  from  about  2000  to  1400  B.  C.  The  city  is  fre- 
quently referred  to  in  the  Egyptian  inscriptions,  and  was  occupied 

(53) 


54 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  THE  AMORITES. 


until  the  Christian  era.  The  earliest  inhabitants,  the  troglodytes, 
Macalister  holds,  practised  cremation,  made  pottery  by  hand,  and 
at  times  ornamented  it.  The  Semitic  people,  who  displaced  the 
old  inhabitants,  built  a great  megalithic  high  place,  practised  sacri- 
fice of  the  firstborn  and  foundation  sacrifice;  had  many  varieties 
of  grain  for  food;  were  strongly  influenced  by  Egypt,  but  much 
less  by  Babylonia.  Besides  figurines,  regarded  as  representing 
Ashirta,  two  cuneiform  tablets  of  the  seventh  century  B.  C.  were 
found  at  Gezer,  and  belonged  to  the  later  period,  when  Judah  was 
tributary  to  Assyria. 

The  work  of  Sellin  at  Ta‘anach  shows  that  the  place  may  have 
been  occupied  from  about  2000  B.  C.  up  to  the  time  of  Josiah,  when 
it  was  destroyed  by  the  Egyptians  or  the  Scythians.  The  two  dis- 
coveries of  significance  made  at  Ta'anach  besides  figurines,  are 
eight  cuneiform  tablets,  and  a crude  pottery  altar  of  incense.  The 
tablets  had  probably  been  preserved  in  the  pottery  chest,  beside 
which  some  of  them  were  found.  It  will  be  recalled  that  in  the  time 
of  Jeremiah  (Jer.  32:  14)  important  writings  were  kept  in  earthen 
jars.  In  not  a few  instances  jars  have  been  found  in  Babylonia 
containing  tablets.  The  building  in  which  the  tablets  were  found 
may  have  been  the  residence  of  one,  Ashirta-washur,  to  whom  sev- 
eral of  the  letters  are  addressed.  Guli-Addi  offers  to  send  silver 
to  Ashirta-washur;  and  among  other  things  calls  on  him  to  give 
his  daughter,  when  old  enough,  to  the  king  (namely  of  Egypt). 
Ahi-Jami  refers  to  some  weapons  he  received;  inquires  whether 
certain  cities  had  been  recovered;  proposes  to  send  a messenger 
Aman-hashir  (perhaps  an  Egyptian) ; and  informs  Ashirta-washur 
that  he  will  send  on  the  morrow  his  brothers  with  the  chariots, 
a horse  as  tribute,  presents,  and  all  prisoners  then  in  his  hands. 
Besides  these  letters,  tablets  containing  lists  of  men,  and  other 
fragments,  make  up  the  eight  tablets  discovered.  It  is  understood 
that  these  tablets  belong  to  the  same  general  period  as  the  Amarna 
letters ; and  if  that  is  correct,  the  name  Ahi-Jami,  which  is  very 
probably  equivalent  to  Ahijah,  is  most  interesting,  since  it  con- 
tains the  divine  name  of  Israel’s  God,  written  Ja-mi.  In  the 
Murashu  archives  found  at  Nippur,  belonging  to  the  reigns  of 
Artaxerxes  and  Darius,  the  divine  element  in  Hebrew  names  is 
written  Ja-a-ma  for  Jaiva. 


IV.  EXCAVATIONS  IN  AMURRU. 


55 


At  Tell  Mutesellim,  which  is  part  of  ancient  Megiddo,  about  an 
hour  northwest  of  Tell  Ta‘  anach,  Sellin  devoted  two  years  to  exca- 
vating. Megiddo  was  captured  by  Thutmose  III;  it  figures  with 
Ta‘ anach  in  the  Amarna  Letters;  was  fortified  by  Solomon;  and 
was  the  place  where  Ahaziah  died,  and  Josiah  lost  his  life.  Besides 
buildings,  walls,  pottery,  bronze  and  stone  objects,  etc.,  that  were 
discovered,  two  seals  were  found.  The  one  was  a jasper  seal  stone 
bearing  a Hebrew  inscription,  “to  Shema,  servant  of  Jeroboam,” 
who  is  considered  by  some  to  be  one  of  the  two  Hebrew  kings  who 
bore  that  name.  The  other  seal  bore  the  name  of  Asaph. 

At  Sebastiyah,  the  ancient  Samaria,  the  expedition  of  Harvard 
University  was  able  to  excavate  during  parts  of  three  seasons. 
Here  a large  palace  was  found  built  upon  native  rock,  which  is 
believed  to  be  the  palace  of  Omri.  This  was  later  extensively 
enlarged,  and  the  walls  faced  with  white  marble.  This  is  believed 
to  have  been  the  work  of  Ahab,  who  is  said  to  have  built  an  ‘ ‘ ivory 
home”  (I  Kgs.  22:  39).  In  a building  on  a level  with  this  palace 
about  one  hundred  potsherds  were  found  containing  some  of  the 
earliest  specimens  of  Hebrew  writing  known.  The  ostraca  are 
memoranda  for  wine  and  oil  which  had  been  stored,  containing  the 
names  of  the  sender  and  receiver,  amounts,  name  of  place  whence 
it  came,  and  the  date.  The  year  of  the  reign  is  given,  but  unfortu- 
nately not  the  name  of  the  king.  An  old  city  gate  of  the  Israelite 
period,  ruins  of  other  buildings  of  later  periods,  and  other  remains 
were  uncovered. 

More  recently,  Ain  Shems,  the  Biblical  Beth-Shemesh,  not  far 
from  Der  Aban  on  the  railroad  between  Jaffa  and  Jerusalem,  was 
excavated  by  Mackenzie,  in  1911  and  1912.  The  war  brought  to 
a close  other  excavations  that  were  being  conducted  at  Balata,  near 
Nablus,  the  Biblical  Shechem,  and  on  the  Ophel  at  Jerusalem. 
Besides  these  operations,  other  excavations  of  a private  character 
have  been  conducted  from  time  to  time  by  scholars  and  travellers 
through  which  important  results  have  been  obtained. 

The  results  of  these  excavations  that  have  a bearing  on  the  pres- 
ent discussion  belong  naturally  to  the  early  period.  Through  them 
we  learn  about  the  massive  city  walls,  the  plans  of  the  houses,  the 
kinds  of  weapons  and  utensils  the  people  used;  something  about 
their  foods ; and  the  stock  they  raised ; about  their  religious 


56 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  THE  AMORITES. 


beliefs  and  practices ; their  methods  of  burial ; the  state  their  art 
had  reached;  and  about  their  intercourse  with  other  nations.  It 
is  by  the  help  of  these  facts  that  we  draw  our  inferences  for  an 
understanding  of  the  civilization  in  this  part  of  Amurru. 

It  must  be  admitted,  however,  that  if  it  were  not  for  the  light 
that  contemporaneous  records  and  the  Old  Testament  throw  upon 
the  early  period,  these  excavations  would  give  us  little  conception 
of  the  civilization  that  existed  in  the  land.  The  excavations  con- 
ducted in  the  hills  of  Palestine,  important  as  they  are  in  throwing- 
light  upon  certain  phases  of  the  early  life  of  the  land,  and  its  con- 
tact with  the  surrounding  nations,  nevertheless  furnish  us  with 
little  understanding  of  the  actual  occupation  of  that  region  by  Sem- 
itic peoples.  The  excavations  conducted  at  Tell  Mutesellim,  a 
part  of  Megiddo,  for  example,  have  not  furnished  materials  from 
which  it  is  possible  to  draw  any  adequate  picture  of  the  civilization 
of  that  city.  It  is  only  with  the  light  that  we  obtain  from  such  a 
list  of  booty  taken  after  the  fall  of  the  fortress,  as  that  given  by 
Tliutmose  III,  that  we  begin  to  appreciate  how  that  district 
swarmed  with  life  in  ancient  times.  The  same  is  true  of  the  tale  of 
Sinuhe,  which  throws  such  a flood  of  light  upon  the  civilization 
north  of  Palestine,  about  2000  B.  C.  (see  Chapter  XIV).  Should 
fortune  favor  us  with  light  on  Palestine  of  the  same  era  or  earlier, 
we  shall  doubtless  find,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  cave-dwellers 
lived  in  the  hills,  and  other  foreign  peoples  were  in  evidence,  that 
the  country  teemed  with  Semites  in  permanent  agricultural  settle- 
ments ; a people  who  possessed  great  herds,  and  who  had  attained 
unto  a very  fair  civilization,  exactly  as  the  traditions  of  the  Old 
Testament  lead  us  to  believe  they  possessed. 

Without  any  desire  to  minimize  the  importance  of  the  results  of 
the  excavations,  we  cannot  help  expressing  great  disappointment 
in  not  finding  more  written  records  of  an  early  period,  such  as  are 
found  in  Egypt  and  Babylonia.  The  earliest  writings  discovered, 
besides  the  few  cuneiform  tablets,  are  the  ostraca,  above  referred 
to;  the  so-called  Calendar  Inscription  found  at  Gezer,  probably 
going  back  to  the  ninth  century;  the  Moabite  stone,  the  Siloam 
inscription,  and  a few  minor  inscribed  objects  which  follow  in  point 
of  time. 

The  results  of  these  excavations  have  led  many  scholars  to  con- 


IV.  EXCAVATIONS  IN  AMUEBU. 


57 


elude  that  the  Semitic  peoples  of  Palestine  in  the  early  period  pos- 
sessed only  a low  type  of  civilization,  and  were  without  the 
knowledge  of  a written  language  of  their  own.  True,  in  the 
A mania  period  they  admit  the  Babylonian  language  and  script  had 
been  used  for  diplomatic  and  inter-commercial  purposes ; and  some 
even  think  that  the  early  portions  of  the  Old  Testament  were 
written  in  this  language.  Although  on  the  highway  between  Egypt 
on  the  one  hand,  and  Babylonia-Assyria  as  well  as  the  countries 
to  the  north,  on  the  other,  and  the  scene  of  many  battles  and  con- 
flicting forces,  Palestine  was  nevertheless  removed,  and  in  a 
measure  isolated,  from  the  great  centres  of  the  Semites.  Even,  if 
the  city  Humurtu,  which  thrived  in  the  third  millennium,  was  the 
Gomorrah  of  the  Old  Testament,  as  some  have  inferred,  and  was 
situated  in  this  district,  we  have  no  other  evidence  of  activity  here 
on  the  part  of  the  early  kings  of  the  East,  except  the  campaign  in 
the  days  of  Amraphel.  But  although  the  civilization  in  Palestine 
may  not  have  been  developed  as  that  of  the  region  to  the  north  and 
the  northeast,  unquestionably  it  was  of  a vastly  higher  order  than 
that  indicated  by  the  archaeological  remains  that  have  been 
unearthed  at  the  several  sites  excavated. 

While  the  Amorite  empire  lasted,  the  efforts  of  the  Babylonian 
conquerors  were  usually  concentrated  on  the  Mediterranean  and 
Mesopotamian  districts,  where  the  old  and  more  important  Sem- 
itic centres  of  civilization  existed.  These  were  the  favorite  regions 
for  invasions,  as  is  evidenced  by  the  inscriptions;  but  unfortu- 
nately, as  mentioned  above,  excavations  in  these  parts  have  not  as 
yet  been  undertaken.  All  the  light  that  can  be  thrown  upon  the 
early  history  of  the  country  is  gathered  from  contemporaneous 
sources,  and  inscriptions  of  a later  period.  Everywhere  in  this 
broad  land  the  ruin-hills  of  the  past  can  be  seen.  On  the  plain 
between  the  Lebanons,  along  the  sea,  in  the  region  between  the 
rivers,  and  notably  along  the  Euphrates  can  be  numbered  thou- 
sands of  sites,  many  of  which  when  opened  up  to  the  light  of  day 
will  reveal  the  data  whereby  the  history  of  the  Amorites  can  be 
reconstructed ; and  that  empire  of  the  distant  past,  which  has  been 
known  heretofore  only  through  descendants  of  those  that  have  sur- 
vived its  destruction,  will  take  its  place  in  the  galaxy  of  nations 
that  belong  to  the  dawn  of  history. 


V 

THE  RACES  OF  AMURRU 


Situated  in  such  a central  position,  Amurru,  into  which  poured 
different  races  from  all  sides,  and  for  so  many  generations,  was 
occupied  by  a people  which  doubtless  ethnologically  represented  a 
great  mixture,  and  among  whom  were  found  more  than  one  distinct 
type. 

Our  present  knowledge  does  not  permit  us  to  approach  with  any 
degree  of  accuracy  the  difficult  problem  of  the  distribution  of  the 
different  Semites  throughout  the  great  parallelogram  which  they 
occupied.  It  is  however  possible  to  refer  at  least  to  three  distinct 
types,  which  may  be  called  the  Arabian,  Canaanite,  and  Aramaean. 

The  modern  Bedouin,  according  to  anthropologists,  seem  to  form 
a homogeneous  unity  with  little  mixture  of  strange  elements.  They 
are  regarded  as  pure  descendants  of  an  old  Semitic  race.  They 
are  dolichocephalic,  have  dark  complexion,  and  a short,  small  and 
straight  nose.  This  may  be  said  to  be  the  Arab  type.  Penned  up 
as  it  were  in  Arabia,  a country  that  did  not  experience  so  many 
invasions,  the  type  of  the  Arab  Semite,  it  would  seem,  has  changed 
little  in  millenniums.  Even  if  tradition  is  correct  in  making 
Mesopotamia  the  home  of  the  Semites  (see  Chapter  II),  the  Arab 
having  lived  for  so  long  an  era  in  his  land  very  probably  represents 
the  purest  type,  because  the  admixture  with  other  races  could  not 
have  been  so  great. 

With  the  exception  of  the  impression  gathered  from  the  Old 
Testament  that  the  Canaanite  was  tall  in  stature,  we  are  indebted 
to  the  Egyptian  monuments  for  our  knowledge  of  the  physiognomy 
of  the  Canaanite-Amorite.  These  monuments  are  especially  rich 
in  representations  of  the  dwellers  of  this  part  of  Amurru.  From 
a study  of  the  characteristics  observed  upon  these  monuments  it 
would  seem  that  this  race  of  Amurru,  produced  by  the  great  mix- 
ture of  races  that  existed  along  the  Mediterranean  from  a very 
early  era,  was  looked  upon  by  the  artists  as  a clearly  defined  type. 
He  had  broad  shoulders  and  was  tall  in  stature.  His  head  was 
large  and  dolichocephalic  or  long  headed ; it  was  somewhat  narrow 

(58) 


V.  THE  EACES  OF  AMURKTJ. 


59 


like  that  of  modern  tribes  living  in  the  Lebanon  district.  The  fore- 
head was  low  and  retreating;  the  nose  had  a distinctly  aquiline 
curve.  Large  brows  overshadowed  their  blue  or  dark  eyes.  The 
high  cheek  bones  stood  out  from  their  hollow  cheeks.  The  lower 
part  of  the  face  was  square  and  somewhat  heavy ; and  was  usually 
concealed  by  a thick  and  curly  beard,  which  was  pointed.  The  lips 
seem  to  have  been  comparatively  thin,  and  a mustache  was  rarely 
worn.  The  hair  of  the  head  was  either  shaved  off,  or  it  was  allowed 
to  grow  long  and  worn  in  frizzed  curls,  hung  back  of  the  neck. 
Women  wore  their  hair  in  three  masses,  the  largest  thrown  over 
the  back  while  the  other  two  dropped  on  either  side  of  the  face  upon 
the  breast. 

At  Abu-Simbel  the  skin  of  the  Canaanite-Amorite  is  painted  yel- 
low, by  which  the  Egyptian  intended  to  represent  a white  people ; 
their  eyes  are  blue,  and  the  beard  and  eyebrows  red.  At  Medinet 
Habu  the  skin  is  painted  rather  pinker  than  flesh  color,  according 
to  Petrie;  and  in  a tomb  of  the  Eighteenth  Dynasty  at  Thebes, 
it  is  white ; the  eyes  and  hair  being  light  red-brown.  At  Karnak 
the  skin  of  the  figures  is  alternately  red  and  yellow. 

The  Egyptian  monuments  throw  considerable  light  upon  the 
dress  of  these  Canaanite-Amorites.  The  peasant,  or  one  from 
the  lower  class,  usually  represented  as  barefooted,  wore  either  a 
loin  cloth  similar  to  the  Egyptian,  or  he  is  found  wearing  a white 
or  yellow  shirt  with  short  sleeves,  extending  below  the  knees.  The 
hem  of  the  shirt  was  generally  embroidered.  The  noble  or  upper 
class  man  wore  a similar  shirt,  but  over  it  a long  piece  of  cloth 
which  after  passing  closely  around  the  hips  and  chest  was  brought 
up  over  the  shoulder,  and  formed  a sort  of  cloak.  This  was  made 
of  a thick  rough  wool  material  and  was  embroidered  with  bands, 
lines,  and  circles.  The  color  and  design  were  conspicuous.  Two 
large  shawls,  one  red  and  one  blue,  arranged  so  that  the  colors 
would  alternate,  were  sometimes  substituted  for  the  cloak.  A soft 
leather  belt  gathered  the  folds  about  the  waist.  A cap  and  a hand- 
kerchief held  by  a fillet  were  worn;  sometimes  a wig,  and  red 
morocco  buskins,  completed  the  dress.1 

1 The  above  description  of  the  Canaanite-Amorite  is  based  on  Petrie 
Racial  Types ; Sayce  Races  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  Early  History  of 
the  Hebrews  p.  20;  and  Maspero  The  Struggle  of  Nations  p.  149  ff. 


60 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  THE  AMORITES. 


Efforts  have  been  put  forth  by  some  to  show  from  these  pictorial 
representations  that  the  Canaanite-Amorites  were  Indo-Euro- 
peans ; others  have  declared  the  type  to  be  distinctly  Semitic,  and, 
as  above,  represented  at  the  present  time  by  peoples  in  the  Lebanon 
district.  Doubtless  the  tallness  of  the  stature  and  even  other 
anatomical  characteristics  resulted  from  the  race  mixture  that  the 
type  represents,  and  which  the  artist  recognized.  Taking  every- 
thing, however,  into  consideration,  it  is  not  at  all  improbable  that 
the  type  that  was  predominant  in  this  region,  though  partially  Sem- 
itic, represented  much  that  was  foreign  and  perhaps  aboriginal. 

In  Northern  Syria  there  is  found  at  present  another  type,  which 
may  be  called  Aramaean,  also  having  a striking  uniformity,  nearly 
all  the  heads  being  brachycephalic.  The  Armenians  and  other 
peoples  of  Asia  Minor  show  the  same  uniformity.  Investigations 
have  led  to  the  conviction  that  in  early  times  the  country  was  inhab- 
ited by  a homogeneous  and  extremely  brachycephalic  race.2  The 
type  depicted  on  the  obelisk  of  Shalmaneser  and  the  Lachish 
relief  of  Sennacherib,  it  would  seem,  portray  this  race;  and  it 
would  hardly  be  possible  for  a modern  sculptor  to  produce  a more 
characteristic  representation  of  what  is  regarded  as  the  well  known 
Jewish  type  of  today.  The  Egyptian  sculptor  of  Sheshonk  also 
portrayed  Israelites  who  were  subjects  of  Relioboam,  hut  he  gave 
them  the  characteristic  Canaanite  features.  As  is  known,  about 
fifty  per  cent  of  Jews  living  at  present  are  brachycephalic.  Since 
tradition  points  to  Aram  as  the  home  of  the  Israelites  or  Jews  of 
ancient  time,  it  is  reasonable  to  assume  that  they  are  to  be  grouped 
with  what  is  called  Aramaean. 

The  question  arises,  did  the  dweller  in  the  Euphrates  region  rep- 
resent another  type?  The  status  of  the  early  period  found  in 
Sumer  and  Akkad  furnish  us  with  material  for  the  study  of  these 
people,  but  besides  showing  that  the  Semites  wore  beards,  and 
knowledge  concerning  their  dress,  little  of  value  for  the  subject 
under  consideration  is  gained  from  them.3  The  only  statue  we 
have  of  a ruler  designated  as  Amorite  is  that  of  . . . -um-Sham- 
ash,  king  of  Mari ; hut  this  is  headless. 

2 Yon  Luschan  Ausgrabungen  in  Senschirli. 

3 See  Meyer  Sumerier  und  Semiten  in  Bdbylonien. 


VI 

THE  LANGUAGES  AND  WRITING  OF  AMURRU 

The  language  of  Amurru  was  Semitic.  There  can  be  no  question 
that  there  were  many  non-Semitic  languages  in  the  land,  but  as 
far  as  can  be  determined  at  present,  in  spite  of  the  opinion  held 
by  some  scholars,  it  can  be  said  that  the  prevailing  language  in  all 
eras  was  Semitic.  The  chief  evidence  of  this  fact  is  obtained 
through  a study  of  the  personal  and  geographical  names  of  the 
country  belonging  to  every  period,  early  and  late.  The  elements 
compounded  with  the  names  of  Amorite  deities  fully  determine 
this ; in  fact,  our  knowledge  of  the  early  Amorite  language  is  prac- 
tically dependent  on  the  study  of  the  personal  names. 

Chiera  in  a recent  volume  of  inscriptions  published  an  important 
syllabary  which  contained  a long  list  of  Amorite  names,  represent- 
ing doubtless  individuals  who  had  migrated  from  Amurru  into 
Babylonia  ( UMBS  XI,  1).  By  a study  of  the  Amorite  names  con- 
tained in  the  cuneiform  literature  as  well  as  this  syllabary  it  is 
possible  to  acquire  not  only  considerable  knowledge  concerning  the 
religious  ideas  expressed  by  the  people  in  the  giving  of  names,  hut 
also  most  important  lexicographical  and  philological  material.  In 
fact,  some  of  the  roots  lost  in  Hebrew  have  left  their  traces  in  these 
names,  many  of  which  become  explicable  by  the  help  of  the  cognate 
languages,  while  others  remain  undetermined.  It  is  possible  to 
construct  at  the  present  time  a fair-sized  vocabulary  of  Amorite 
words  of  the  early  period,  simply  from  personal  names. 

Many  names  in  Cappadocian  tablets,  with  the  help  of  this  knowl- 
edge, prove  to  be  Amorite.  The  same  is  true  of  many  in  the 
Amarna  letters,  and  even  in  the  Egyptian  inscriptions.  All  these 
facts  make  it  impossible  to  follow  those  who  hold  that  not  only  the 
Philistines  and  Phoenicians  but  also  the  Amorites  were  pre-Hel- 
lenic invaders  from  the  Aegean  Islands,  including  Crete. 

The  question  then  arises,  since  we  are  familiar  with  a number 
of  different  groups  of  Semitic  languages,  to  what  branch  does  the 

(61) 


62 


THE  EMPIRE  OP  THE  AMORITES. 


language  of  the  Amorites  belong?  Besides  the  Babylonian  and 
Assyrian,  which  are  now  called  by  many  Akkadian,  we  know  two 
other  branches  of  Semitic  languages  in  the  north,  namely  the  Ara- 
maic and  the  Hebrew.  What  may  be  called  the  Amoraic,  or  the 
language  of  the  Amorites,  is  the  parent  of  all  these  branches.  An 
examination  of  the  philological  material  furnished  us  from  the 
many  Amorite  names  on  Babylonian  tablets,  prior  to  2000  B.  C., 
and  those  from  the  few  tablets  belonging  to  the  early  part  of  the 
second  millennium  B.  C.  as  well  as  the  Amarna  letters,  and  the  few 
tablets  found  in  Palestine,  show  that  the  language  closely  resembles 
Hebrew. 

The  language  of  the  Babylonians  and  Assyrians,  or  the  Akka- 
dian, the  writer  maintains  came  from  Amurru,  and  under  Sumerian 
influence  developed  pronounced  grammatical  differences.  This 
Akkadian  language  having  been  later  used  extensively  throughout 
Amurru,  in  turn  has  left  many  traces  of  its  influence  upon  the 
Hebrew  and  Aramaic.  It  is  a question  whether  the  language  used 
in  Syria  at  a much  earlier  period  was  carried  into  Arabia  and 
became  what  we  now  recognize  as  Arabic,  or  whether  both  are  from 
a source  of  which  we  have  at  present  no  knowledge. 

There  is  great  difference  of  opinion  as  regards  the  kind  of  script 
used  by  the  Amorites.  Most  scholars  do  not  admit  that  the  Wes- 
tern Semites  had  a script  of  their  own  prior  to  1000  B.  C.,  when 
they  suppose  the  Phoenician  alphabet  to  have  been  introduced. 
Since  in  the  middle  of  the  second  millennium  B.  C.  the  Babylonian 
language  and  script  were  used  in  Palestine,  as  is  evident  from  the 
Amarna  letters  and  the  Ta‘anach  tablets,  some  hold  that  the  earli- 
est records  of  the  Old  Testament  must  have  been  first  written  in 
cuneiform. 

It  must  be  admitted  that  writing  is  not  mentioned  in  the  Penta- 
teuch until  the  time  of  Moses.  Abraham  instructed  Eliezer  what 
to  say  to  his  people.  When  he  bought  a piece  of  ground,  he  called 
the  sons  of  Heth  at  the  city  gate  as  witnesses,  although  a document 
may  have  been  drawn  up.  Jacob  sent  messengers  when  he 
entreated  the  favor  of  Esau ; Judah  in  promising  to  make  a pay- 
ment, gave  his  staff  and  the  jewel  he  wore  on  a cord  about  his  neck 
as  a pledge.  These  facts,  however,  do  not  prove  that  writing  was 
not  practised  among  the  Aramaeans  or  Amorites.  Even  if  those 


VI.  THE  LANGUAGES  AND  WAITING  OF  AMUBBU. 


63 


referred  to  could  not  write,  we  need  only  mention  that  scribes 
hardly  accompanied  small  nomadic  groups. 

If  the  single  tablet  at  Lachish,  and  the  few  others  at  Gezer  and 
Ta‘anach  had  not  been  found,  and  the  woman  had  not  searched  for 
wood  at  El-Amarna,  at  present  we  could  not  prove  that  writing 
was  known  at  all  in  Palestine  in  the  second  millennium  B.  C.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  nothing  has  been  found  through  the  excavations 
thus  far  to  show  that  the  people  of  Israel  were  literary  even  in  the 
first  millennium  B.  C.  Why  is  it  that  absolutely  nothing  has  been 
found  in  Palestine  thus  far  contemporaneous  to  the  writings  of  the 
Old  Testament  to  show  that  these  writings  actually  existed  in 
ancient  times. 

It  is  an  acknowledged  fact,  from  the  antiquities  discovered,  that 
Egypt  extensively  influenced  the  civilization  of  Palestine.  The 
Egyptians  conquered  and  ruled  the  land ; and  their  script  was  also 
known  in  Palestine.  Nevertheless,  besides  such  objects  as  scarabs, 
and  a few  steles,  nothing  has  been  preserved  to  show  this.  True, 
we  know  the  Egyptian  princes  in  Palestine  of  the  Amarna  period 
wrote  to  their  masters  in  cuneiform;  but  was  the  language  of 
Egypt,  of  which  we  ourselves  have  so  much  evidence  upon  the 
monuments  and  on  papyri,  not  made  use  of  by  its  representatives 
in  Palestine?  And  while,  as  we  said,  we  have  not  a scrap  of  evi- 
dence of  the  Biblical  period  from  Palestine  to  show  that  any  portion 
of  the  Old  Testament  existed,  down  in  Egypt  at  Elephantine  a large 
number  of  records  have  been  found  belonging  to  a Jewish  colony 
of  the  time  of  Nehemiah,  which  among  other  things  refer  to  the 
temple  the  J ews  had  erected  there.  In  Egypt,  as  is  known,  masses 
of  papyri  have  been  preserved.  In  Palestine  not  a fragment  has 
been  found ; but  its  absence  among  the  antiquities  discovered  cer- 
tainly does  not  prove  that  it  had  not  been  used ; for  we  know  that 
the  climate  has  not  been  favorable  to  its  preservation. 

There  are  those  who  perhaps  would  concede  that  the  Semitic 
people  of  this  district  also  used  the  Babylonian  cuneiform  script 
for  their  own  Amorite  language,  as  did  the  Hittites,  Mitannians 
and  the  Yannic  people  for  their  languages.  This,  however,  does 
not  seem  reasonable  in  the  absence  of  any  proof  whatsoever.  If 
the  Amorites  in  Palestine  had  used  the  cuneiform  script  for  their 
language,  the  excavations  would  certainly  have  yielded  evidence  of 


64 


THE  EMPIRE  OP  THE  AMORITES. 


this  fact — and  not  only  a little  evidence,  but  masses  of  it,  in  view 
of  their  advanced  literary  achievements.  And  what  is  true  of 
Palestine  and  the  rest  of  Amurru  is  true  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria, 
where  tens  of  thousands  of  Amorites  have  lived  in  many  different 
periods.  Even  in  the  time  after  it  is  assumed  that  they  adopted 
an  alphabetic  script,  we  ought  to  find  evidences ; for  clay  was  an 
ever  ready  inexpensive  writing  material,  while  papyrus  or  skins 
required  considerable  time  to  prepare.  There  are  many  Hebrew 
words  in  the  Amarna  letters.  Some  (aside  from  the  personal 
names)  are  found  in  the  Cappadocian  and  other  tablets  written  in 
the  Babylonian  language,  but  not  a single  tablet  known  to  the 
writer  can  be  said  to  be  written  in  Hebrew  in  the  Babylonian  script 
or  syllabary.  Let  us  repeat.  Other  peoples,  like  the  Hittites, 
Mitannians,  and  Vannic  peoples  used  the  Babylonian  syllabary 
for  their  languages.  This  was  known  throughout  Amurru,  of 
which  we  have  much  evidence.  Why  is  it  that  not  a single  tablet 
has  been  found  as  yet  in  Palestine,  Mesopotamia,  or  Babylonia 
written  in  the  Hebrew  language?  The  answer  is,  they  had  a script 
of  their  own,  which  they  used  upon  perishable  material;  which 
fact  is  doubtless  responsible  for  early  examples  of  it  not  being 
known  at  present.  The  high  literary  character  of  the  earliest 
acknowledged  writings  of  the  Hebrews,  and  even  the  earliest  of  the 
Aramaeans,  makes  it  wholly  unreasonable  to  hold  the  view  that 
such  arose  in  a comparatively  short  time,  and  that  the  people  of 
Amurru  previously  had  no  script  of  their  own.  A written  and 
literary  language  having  a long  history  is  certainly  presupposed. 
This  great.  Semitic  people,  who  have  handed  down  an  incomparable 
literature,  and  whose  system  of  writing  was  adopted  by  the  Greeks 
as  early  as  1200  B.  C.,  or  perhaps  earlier,  certainly  had  in  more 
ancient  times  a script  of  their  own  as  well  as  their  neighbors.  A 
marked  development  in  the  script  is  noted  as  having  already  taken 
place  prior  to  the  earliest  examples  of  the  writing,  and  makes  it 
reasonable  to  conclude  that  it  has  a much  greater  antiquity  than  at 
present  can  be  shown  by  archaeology.  Whether  the  early  script 
was  more  hieroglyphic  in  form,  or  had  at  least  partially  developed 
into  an  alphabetic  script,  as  had  the  writing  of  the  Egyptians,  who 
had  alphabetic  characters  in  their  system  in  the  earliest  period  of 
their  history,  cannot  at  present  be  surmised. 


VI.  THE  LANGUAGES  AND  WRITING  OF  AMURRU. 


65 


Petrie  in  his  excavations  of  the  Egyptian  temple  at  Serabit  el 
Khadim  in  the  Sinaitic  Peninsula  found  an  inscription  in  unknown 
characters,  which  dates  from  about  1500  B.  C.  Gardiner  and 
Cowley  conjecture  that  the  word  b‘lt  (ba‘ alat)  “goddess”  occurs 
in  the  inscription,  on  the  basis  of  which  they  identify  other  charac- 
ters and  read  a dozen  or  more  words,  and  rebuild  the  old  theory 
of  the  Egyptian  origin  of  the  Semitic  alphabet. 

As  is  known,  the  Babylonian  language  was  used  in  Amurru  as 
early  as  the  third  millennium  B.  C.  At  present  there  are  no  data 
upon  which  to  base  an  intelligent  theory  as  to  how  and  when  this 
language  and  the  cuneiform  script  were  introduced  in  the  West. 
We  know  that  Babylonia  in  the  earliest  known  historical  period 
had  already  come  into  conflict  with  Amurru.  Etana,  Shar-banda, 
Gilgamesh,  and  others  of  this  era,  invaded  the  land.  (See  Chap- 
ters VIII  and  IX.)  The  resources  of  the  country,  as  well  as  the 
loot  that  could  be  secured,  were  inviting  also  to  Lugal-zaggisi, 
Sargon,  Naram-Sin,  Gudea,  the  kings  of  the  Ur  Dynasty,  and 
others.  But  exactly  what  movement  was  responsible  for  the  intro- 
duction of  the  Babylonian  language  into  that  region  is  not  known. 
As  it  is  impossible  to  state  exactly  why  the  use  of  the  Aramaic  lan- 
guage spread  all  over  western  Asia,  including  Cappadocia,  Baby- 
lonia, Persia,  and  even  Egypt,  in  the  first  millennium  B.  C.,  except 
that  in  the  Persian  period  it  was  the  diplomatic  language,  it  is  also 
impossible  to  determine  what  was  responsible  for  the  introduction 
of  the  Babylonian  as  the  international  commercial  and  diplomatic 
language  in  the  previous  and  earlier  millenniums. 


VII 

THE  NAME  AMURRU  OR  URU 

The  word  “ Amorite”  in  the  Old  Testament  has  been  as  familiar 
to  Biblical  students  during  the  past  centuries  as  almost  any  other 
designation  of  ancient  peoples,  but  with  comparatively  little  under- 
standing as  to  what  the  term  meant.  This  is  largely  due  to  the  fact 
that  the  imperial  history  of  the  people  came  to  a close  prior  to 
2000  B.  C. 

The  term  “Amorite,”  used  in  the  Old  Testament  for  a people 
who  lived  in  Palestine  and  the  region  east  of  the  Jordan,  as  is  gen- 
erally understood,  appears  only  with  the  gentilic  ending  and  with 
two  exceptions  always  with  the  article,  ixd’amori  “the  Amorite.”1 

In  the  cuneiform  inscriptions,  the  name  of  the  land  is  written 
phonetically  A-mu-ur-ri-iki , A-mur-ri-e,  matA-mur-ri,  A-mu-ri, 
A-mur-ra,  etc.,  and  with  the  ideograms  Marki  and  matMar-Tu.2  In 
the  Egyptian  inscriptions  from  the  time  of  Seti  I the  land  is  called 
’mr,  which  can  be  vocalized  Amor , and  refers  to  the  district  or 
valley  now  called  Beka‘,  between  the  Lebanons  (see  Chapter  XIV). 

Since  the  cuneiform  made  no  distinction  between  the  u and  o 
vowels,  in  view  of  the  pronunciation  of  the  name  in  Josephus, 
’A /lop (t)ia  (Ant.  I:  13,  1 f.),  and  that  of  the  Hebrew,  Greek,  and 
Syriac  versions  of  the  Old  Testament,  it  is  certain  that  the  vowel 
written  u in  cuneiform  was  pronounced  o,  i.  e.  Amor.  The  doub- 
ling of  the  r found  in  many  of  the  forms  is  due  to  the  long  vowel 
which  precedes.  In  other  words,  Amurru=Amuru.  Although  the 
vowel  was  pronounced  o instead  of  the  English  u,  Amurru  will 

1 The  LXX  transliterated  ’ Apoppcuoi.,  ’A p.oppei,  ’A/iappaioi,  ’ Ap.popf.io , etc. 

2 Other  phonetically  orthographic  examples  follow : In  the  time  of 
Ammi-zaduga  there  is  a place  near  Sippar  called  A-mu-ur-ri-i  (Meissner 
ABP  42: 1,  21).  In  the  Amarna  tablets  the  name  is  written  mal  A-mur-ri, 
mat  A-mu-ri,  alA-mu-ur-ra,  mat A-mur-ra,  matati  A-mur-ri,  and  matati  A-mu-ri 
also  ma‘Mar-Tu.  In  the  time  of  the  Assyrian  period  the  name  is  written 
A-mur-ri,  A-mur-ri-e,  etc.  (See  Tofteen  AJSL  1908  29  ff.) 

(66) 


VII.  THE  NAME  AMURRU  OR  URU. 


67 


be  used  here  instead  of  Amor  and  Amorro  (u),  because  the  name 
is  thus  written  in  cuneiform,  from  which  most  of  our  material  for 
discussion  is  drawn. 

The  difficulties  attending  etymologies  of  ancient  geographical 
names  are  fully  appreciated,  for  they  may  belong  to  an  era  far 
remote  from  the  one  in  which  we  may  happen  to  have  evidence  that 
they  had  been  used,  a notable  example  of  which  is  the  name  under 
consideration.  They  may  have  belonged  perchance  to  former 
invaders  of  the  land,  who  were  of  another  race,  and  who  spoke  a 
different  language ; in  this  instance,  however,  this  is  not  probable. 
Some  have  held  that  the  name  signified  ‘the  mountaineer,’  since  in 
the  Old  Testament  the  Amorites  dwelt  in  hills.  This  was  sup- 
ported by  reference  to  the  Hebrew  word  ’amir,  but  this  means 
“summit,”  not  “mountain.”  Others  have  endeavored  to  show 
that  the  word  was  of  Sumerian  or  Assyrian  origin ; but  in  the  light 
of  the  facts  of  this  discussion,  this  does  not  appear  plausible.3 

We  know  the  origin  of  the  geographical  name  Ashur  (Assyria) ; 
how  the  city  Ashur  gave  to  the  country  its  name.  We  are  familiar 
with  the  history  of  early  kingdoms  in  Babylonia,  how  Akkad 
became  dominant  among  the  principalities,  and  the  whole  land  was 
called  Akkad ; and  how  later  Babylon  became  the  centre  of  a great 
empire  which  bore  the  same  name.  It  can  be  shown  in  many 
instances  that  countries  received  their  names  through  the  ascend- 
ancy of  city  states.  Moreover,  like  every  other  empire,  ancient 
and  modern,  Amurru  was  governed  from  a centre,  and  this,  as  we 
shall  see,  gave  the  country  which  it  ruled  its  name  (see  Chapter  X). 

Amurru  was  not  only  the  name  of  the  country,  but  also  the  name 
of  the  chief  deity  of  the  land,  as  were  Ashur,  Tilla,  Mash,  and 
perhaps  Anu  (see  Chapter  XI).  In  consequence  the  name  of  the 
god  and  the  country  will  be  discussed  at  the  same  time,  but  in  each 

3 Amurru  is  regarded  by  Langdon  as  an  early  Sumerian  term  for  the 
West  land,  kur-amur  “land  of  storms,”  written  kur-mar-ur  = mat  abubi. 
He  holds  that  matMar-TU  is  to  be  read  matmar-ru,  a confusion  of  signs  for 
mata-mar-ru  ( Babyloniaca  VI  p.  55).  Haupt  regards  Amurru  as  an  ancient 
Assyrian  name  for  the  Mediterranean  like  yam  in  the  Hebrew.  He  con- 
nects it  with  Assyrian  amir  anu  and  tamertu  “reservoir,”  and  ammaru 
“abundance”  ( JAOS  38,  p.  336). 


68 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  THE  AMORITES. 


instance  it  will  be  indicated  to  which  reference  is  made.  Owing  to 
the  weak  consonants  ’alef  and  mem  in  the  word,  which  readily 
suffer  phonetic  changes,  the  name  appears  in  variant  forms.  If 
it  had  not  been  for  this  fact,  the  writer  would  not  have  had  the 
privilege  of  presenting  this  work,  for  much  of  what  is  here  offered 
would  have  been  known  long  ago. 

Amor  goes  back  to  an  original  Amar,  as  Ashur  is  from  Ashar. 
The  deflection  of  the  a to  o is  a very  common  phonetic  change.  In 
early  and  late  Babylonian  inscriptions  there  are  Amorite  names 
compounded  with  the  deity’s  name  Amar.  In  the  early  period,  cf. 
Galu-dAmar-Dingir  which  may  be  the  Sumerian  for  Amel-dEl- 
Amar;  in  the  late  Babylonian  period, cf.Amar-ra-pa-’ , Amar-a-pa-’ , 
Amar-na-ta-nu,  Amar-sa-al-ti ; and  in  the  Assyrian  texts,  Amar- 
ma-’-a-di,  etc.4  Because  the  deity  d Amaru  is  equated  with  dAmar- 
Z7£w#(Marduk)  (II  R 54:  52g),  and  for  many  other  reasons  it 
seems  highly  probable  that  the  form  of  the  name  Amar  is  found  in 
this  syncretistic  formation  from  which  Marduk  has  arisen.  This 
has  been  recognized  long  ago  (see  Amurru  p.  120  f.). 

As  is  well  known,  matMar-tu  and  Marki  are  ideograms  of  or  rep- 
resent the  name  Amurru;  dMar-tu  and  dMar  are  also  ideograms 
for  the  deity  Amurru.  This  would  seem  to  indicate  that  Amar  and 
Mar  are  related ; and  this  is  the  fact.  As  stated  above,  Amar-Utug 
became  Marduk  and  Amar-da  became  Marada.  That  the  names  of 
the  deity,  dMar  and  dAmurru  are  also  identical,  is  conclusively 
shown  by  a tablet  recently  published  by  Scheil  (RA  14,  140),  which 
is  a parallel  text  to  one  published  by  Virolleaud.  Sar  dMar  in  two 
passages  of  the  former  text  is  reproduced  by  sar  A-mu-ri-im  “king 
of  Amuri”  in  the  latter  text.  And  it  seems  reasonably  certain 
that  the  shortened  form  of  the  name  is  reproduced  in  the  Biblical 
Moriah,  for  which  the  Syriac  version  gives  Amoriah,  as  well  as  the 
Septuagint  in  the  passage  2 Chron.  3:  1 (see  below).  It  seems 
therefore  that  no  other  conclusion  can  be  reached  but  that  Mar  and 
Amar  are  variants  of  the  same  name.  Which  is  the  older  or  orig- 
inal, it  is  impossible  to  say. 

The  vowel  of  Mar  is  variously  written  in  the  deity’s  name,  the 

4 See  Amurru  p.  101.  In  name  books  the  name  is  generally  written  with 
the  ideogram  dSUR. 


VII.  THE  NAME  AMUKKU  OR  URU. 


69 


same  as  in  the  name  Ashar,  A shir,  and  Ashur.  Besides  Mar,  the 
name  is  written  Mer,  Me-ir,  and  Mur. 

Mar  (which,  as  above,  —Amurru)  is  found  very  frequently  in 
early  names  as  in  dMarkl  and  dNin-MarH ; i.  e.  the  god  and  goddess 
of  the  city  Mar  (see  Chapter  X).  This  form  was  used  in  late 
Amorite  names,  and  may  be  the  origin  of  the  Aramaic  mar  mean- 
ing “lord”.5 

The  name  of  the  god  written  Mer  and  Mir  was  carried  to  Baby- 
lonia in  the  earliest  known  period,  cf.  En-Me-ir-kar  of  the  early 
Erechian  dynasty.  In  the  obelisk  of  Manishtusu,  the  names 
Anum-pi-Me-ir  and  Il-ka-Me-ir  occur.  It  is  commonly  found  in 
the  Ur  Dynasty,  where  about  thirty  different  names  are  com- 
pounded with  it,  as  Mer-ka-gi-na,  etc.  In  the  First  Dynasty  it  is 
found  in  such  names  as  dWe-ir-a-bu-su,  Warad-dW e-ir , Ili-i-ma- 
dWe~ir,6  etc.  It  is  found  in  the  name  Tukulti- Me-ir,  king  of  Hana 
( TSBA  8,  352).  It  also  is  found  in  the  syncretistic  name  I-tur- 
Me-ir  (see  Chapter  XI).  In  the  syllabaries  such  forms  with  pre- 
fixed ilu  “god”  occur,  like  I-li-Me-ir.1 

The  form  dMur  seems  to  be  confined  to  the  syllabaries  of  deities, 
where,  like  other  forms  of  the  deity’s  name,  it  is  equated  with  the 
sign  dIM,  indicating  that  it  is  a storm-deity  like  Adad.  Moreover, 
in  the  light  of  the  above,  the  writer  has  no  hesitation  in  asserting 
that  Mar,  Mer,  Mur8  which  are  largely  confined  to  the  syllabaries, 

5 Cf.  the  Amorite  names  in  Assyrian  texts,  Ma-ri-la-rim  with  Mar-la- 
rim-me,  etc.  Other  occurrences  of  the  deity’s  name  in  Amorite  names  in 
the  Assyrian  inscriptions  are  Mar-bi-’-di,  Mar-ia-kin,  Ma-ri-id-di,  Mar-sam-si, 
Mar-se-te-’ , Mar  (TUB)  -su-ri,  etc.  Cf.  also  the  occurrences  in  the  personal 
names  from  West  Semitic  inscriptions  like  Mar-barak  (-pns  ),  Mar-jehai 
(WIO),  Mar-samak  (“JDD")D),  etc.  Note  also  the  name  of  a god  or 
demon,  or  rather  a depotentized  deity  written  NiT/JOft  (see  Amurru  p. 
162). 

6 See  Holma  Acta  Societates  Scientiarum  Fennicae  45  3,  1 : 13,  17. 

7 See  CT  25  20:7;  also  I-lu-Mi-ir,  GT  24  18 : R2 ; and  I-lu-Me-ir  = dIM, 
CT  29  45  : 24.  Probably  117K  of  the  Zakir  inscription  should  be  considered 
in  connection  with.  Mer  instead  of  Uru  (see  below).  Cf.  also  “)!“)£)  = Pir’- 
Mer  or  Pir’-tJru  in  an  Aramaic  letter,  time  of  Ashurbanipal,  Lidzbarski 
ZA  31. 

8 Cf.  Mu-ur  and  Mu-ru  = dIM  (CT  24  32  : 119  ; 29  45:  21-22)  ; and  also 


70 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  THE  AMORITES. 


are  variant  forms  of  the  same  deity’s  name,  that  of  the  storm-god 
of  Amurrn9  which  had  been  brought  into  Babylonia ; and  that  they 
in  turn  are  variant  forms  of  Amar. 

The  phonetic  change  of  ’Amur(ru)  = ’Aivur  = ’Ur,  recognition 
of  which  followed  the  writer’s  discovery  that  Amurru  was  written 
’Awuru  or  ’Uru,  in  Aramaic,  i e.,  ’wr  pIN),  needs  no  discussion, 
since  it  is  generally  accepted  by  scholars.  That  is,  ’ Amur  and  ’Ur 
are  identical.  This  is  illustrated  in  the  Talmudic  word  for 
“west,”  namely  ’Ur  and  ’Uria  (NH1N),  which  also  means 
“twilight,  evening”;  and  the  feminine  ’Urta  (NrniN)  meaning 
“night.”  These  terms  doubtless  had  their  origin  in  Babylonia, 
where  Jews  experienced  difficulty  in  trying  to  understand  how  ’Ur 
PIN)  which  ordinarily  meant  “light”  should  also  mean  “dark- 
ness, west,”  etc.  In  the  Talmud  the  question  is  asked,  ‘Why  is 
the  West  called  ’Uria  and  ’Ur?’  The  answer  given  is,  because  it 
meant  “divine  air”  (variant,  “light”),  meaning  Palestine.10 
There  can  be  little  doubt,  since  the  Babylonian  word  for  “west” 
was  amurru  (also  written  martu ),  because  the  adjoining  country 
represented  that  direction,  that  the  origin  of  the  Talmudic  words 
’Ur  and  ’ Uria  “west,”  also  ’Urta  “night,”  have  etymologically 
to  be  explained  as  coming  from  Amurru  or  ’Uru. 

In  the  early  periods  of  Babylonian  history,  by  the  association  of 
sounds,  scribes  used  different  signs  having  a similar  pronunciation 
to  represent  the  name  of  the  god  Uru.  Following  are  some  of  the 
signs  used,  all  of  which  have  the  value  uru,  and  all  of  which  have 
been  used  for  the  deity’s  name. 

dMu-u-rUrU  = dIM  ( CT  25  17:28).  In  each  instance  Mur  is  identified 
with  the  sign  that  represents  the  chief  Amorite  storm-deity.  Cf.  also 
d niNIN-IMmuru  ki  (CT  25  1:7).  CT  25  20:7  furnishes  us  with  a very 
interesting  identification  of  d *»**-™(*0 IM  with  d To  what  extent 

it  will  be  necessary  later  on  to  read  dlM  = dMur  or  dIM-ra  = Mur-ra 
remains  to  be  seen. 

9 That  Mer(Me-ir)  is  a reading  of  dIM,  the  storm-god,  is  clear  from  such 

passages  as  CT  29  45:20;  24  32:120;  25  20:8,  etc.  In  CT  25  20:8 
d a-da-adjjif  ^ equated  with  d me-ir-me-rqjjf  Perhaps  this  form  of  the 

name  is  found  in  the  Old  Testament  name  Meri-ba‘al  fryy'in  ) written 
Me/aijSaaA.  in  the  Septuagint  (see  1 Chron.  8:34,  etc.). 

10  See  Jastrow  Talmudic  Dictionary  p.  34. 


VII.  THE  NAME  AMUREU  OB  UBU. 


71 


This  is  in  strict  accordance  with  our  knowledge  of  the  expedients 
resorted  to  by  the  Babylonian  scribes  (see  also  under  shar,  Chap- 
ter XVII).  The  sign  for  uru  or  ur  meaning  “servant”  is  used 
as  an  ideogram  and  also  as  a phonogram  in  the  deity’s  names,  Uru, 
and  Ur-ra  or  Ur-ra-gal  ( Amurru  p.  113).  The  sign  uru  meaning 
“brother”  is  employed  in  writing  the  latter  name  Uru- gal. 11  The 
sign  uru1 2 meaning  “irrigation”;  the  sign  urls  meaning  “liver,” 
the  ordinary  sign  uru  meaning  “city,”  ( Amurru  p.  113) ; the  sign 
uru 14  meaning  “whirlwind,  city;”  the  sign  BUR-BUR  = uri 
( Amurru  p.  113),  etc.,  are  all  used  to  represent  the  name  of  the 
god  Uru  (—Amurru) . In  short,  these  many  signs  standing  for  the 
pronunciation  Uru  or  Ur  as  the  name  of  a god  in  early  Babylonian 
literature,  and  also  in  the  late  syllabaries,  where  such  obsolete 
deities’  names  of  the  past  were  preserved,  unquestionably  repre- 
sented the  name  of  the  god  under  consideration. 

While  the  name  of  the  deity  is  found  so  extensively  in  the  nomen- 
clature of  early  Babylonia,  it  is  seldom  found  after  the  fall  of 
Amurru,  or  subsequent  to  2000  B.  C.  It  occurs  in  the  Amorite 
names  U-ru-mil-ki,  time  of  Sennacherib  (I  R 38:  50),  U-ri-im-me-i 
(III  R 9:  54),  and  perhaps  in  a few  other  Assyrian  inscriptions. 
As  would  be  expected,  it  is  more  commonly  used  in  the  land 
Amurru,  for  in  the  Old  Testament  Uri,  Uriah,  Urijah,  Uriel,  and 
Shede-Ur  are  found,  and  it  occurs  in  the  name  Melchior  of  the 
Amarna  tablets,  written  Mil-ki-U-ri  and  Mil-ku-ru.  It  is  found  in 
the  name  U-ru-sa-lim  (Jerusalem)  (see  Amurru  p.  175).  It  is 
found  in  one  of  the  earliest  Aramaic  inscriptions,  the  stele  which 
Zakir  of  Hamath  and  La‘ash  dedicated  to  El-Ur  (T)1?^),15  i.  e. 

11  Cf.  also  Uruu'ruma'aSMas  (CT  24  10:  8). 

12  cf.  d u-mmurum  (CT  25  11 : 26). 

13  Cf.  d mNin_urUr  (CT  25  1 : 8). 

14  Cf.  UruM  ru-Tab  (CT  25  20:17). 

15  The  name  found  in  a Phoenician  inscription  at  Byblos  as  has 

been  suggested  is  the  same  as  ’Uri-milki  (=“|‘?D"11N)  defectively  written 
but  it  contains  the  name  of  the  deity.  It  is  not  improbable  that  the  names 


72 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  THE  AMORITES. 


Aloros.  But  what  is  more  important  in  this  connection  than  all 
else,  it  is  the  name  of  the  capital  of  Amurru,  familiarly  known  as 
“Ur  of  the  Chaldees”  (see  Chapter  X). 

To  those  unfamiliar  with  Semitic  philology  it  may  be  difficult  to 
comprehend  how  this  name  could  appear  in  these  variants,  but  when 
it  is  recalled  that  the  Aramaic  was  written  without  vowels,  and 
that  some  Semites  used  m and  others  w to  represent  the  same 
sound,16  and  that  a weak  consonant  like  w readily  unites  with  a 
homogeneous  sound  and  forms  a long  vowel,  the  phonetic  changes 
become  intelligible.  Then  also  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  most 
of  our  data  are  found  in  the  cuneiform  script,  and  that  for  millen- 
niums Amorites  poured  into  Babylonia  from  Amurru  taking  with 
them  the  name  of  this  deity,  which  was  written  differently  in  dif- 
erent  centres  by  different  guilds  of  scribes  (see  Chapter  I). 

Amar,  Mar  or  Uru  being  an  Amorite  god,  it  is  reasonable  to 
expect  that  his  consort’s  name  would  be  written  Amar-tu,  Mar-tu, 
or  Ur-tu,  like  Ashir  and  Ashirtu,  Anu  and  Antu,  Mash  and  Mashtu, 
etc. 

Recently  the  writer  revived  the  explanation  suggested  long  ago 
that  Mar-tu,  the  common  ideogram  for  Amurru,  is  the  feminine  of 
Mar.11  The  usual  explanation  is  that  it  is  Sumerian,  and  means 
“the  entering  in  of  Mar”  (the  sign  TU  meaning  erebu  “to  enter”). 
It  is  not  impossible  that  Mar-Tu  was  selected  by  the  Babylonian 

Areli  OWNIN'  ) and  Ariel  (‘WIN)  of  the  Old  Testament  also  contain  the 
name  of  ’Uru  (see  Amurru  p.  157).  Ari  — Amurru,  according  to  the 
ancient  Babylonian  scribe,  cf.  SAI  No.  5328.  The  ideogram  BUR-BUR  has 
the  value  Uri  — Akkad  and  Ari  = Amurru.  Whether  Uri  and  Ari  must 
be  considered  as  related  is  of  course  a question;  but  the  raising  of  the 
question  cannot  be  regarded  as  unscientific,  as  per  Bold,  Kanaander , 39  f. 
See  also  the  discussion  in  the  following  chapter  on  Ar-data  and  Ar-wada, 
also  written  El-data  and  Uri-ivada  respectively. 

18  Cf.  Amurru  with  TIN  (above  referred  to),  Simanu  with  fVD , 
Shamash  with  arahshamna  with  pCTTO,  argamanu  with  pJPN, 

Ndbu-rimannu  with  pTDJ , etc.,  a phonetic  change  well  established,  as 
well  as  the  complete  omission  of  the  m after  it  had  become  w in  Assyrian. 

17  The  Biblical  for  Moriah  seems  to  show  that  Martu  actually  represents 
a pronunciation.  Olmstead  has  called  the  writer’s  attention  to  the  classical 
Marathias  and  ‘Amrit,  which  seem  to  show  the  same. 


VII.  THE  NAME  AMURRU  OR  TTRU. 


73 


scribes  as  an  ideogram  for  the  word  representing-  the  “west.”  As 
above  noted  the  Talmudic  ’tJrta  had  a related  meaning,  and  is 
perhaps  the  feminine  of  ’tJria. 

Some  years  ago  the  writer  found  endorsements  scratched  and 
written  with  ink  on  Babylonian  contract  tablets  of  the  Persian 
period,  which  contained  the  name  Nin-IB  in  the  Aramaic  charac- 
ters, ’nwst  (ntmv),  for  which  it  was  proposed  to  read  Enmastu. 
Fully  a score  of  different  explanations  have  since  been  offered  by 
nearly  as  many  different  scholars.18 

Recently  the  writer  had  the  good  fortune  to  find  also  the  read- 
ing of  the  name  in  a Syllabary  in  the  Yale  Babylonian  Collection, 
which  confirms  his  view  that  the  deity  was  Amorite,  and  also  that 
it  is  connected  with  Mar -tu  = Amur ru.  The  syllabary  ( Ml  53: 
288)  reads  as  follows: 

ur-ta  | IB  | u-ra-su  | sa  d Nin-IB  su-ma 
This  means  that  the  sign  IB,  called  urasu,  is  to  be  read  ur-ta,  and 
that  it  is  “a  name  (or  sign)  of  dNin-IB.”19  This  seems  to  mean 
that  the  complete  name  is  to  be  read  ( N)in-urta 20  see  J AOS  37 

18  See  Amurra  p.  196  for  a collection  of  the  different  readings  and  inter- 
pretations, where  the  writer  suggested  an  additional  and  what  he  regarded 
a preferable  explanation,  based  on  the  syllabary : 

ma-as  | MAS  \ ma-a-su  | dNin-IB, 

(B.  1778),  and  the  fact  that  there  were  gods  Masu  and  Mastu  ( K 6335). 
More  recent  views  follow:  Langdon  Liturgies  147  reads  Enursat  (Nin- 
urasa)  ; Pognon  ( JA  1913  p.  411)  and  Thureau-Dangin  (BA  XI  p.  81) 
Anusat ; Hommel  (in  Krausz  Qotternamen  p.  59,  n.  2)  Nin-Numusda(f) ; 
Maynard  ( AJSL  34  29  f.)  Ur-ru-da ; Albright  ( JAOS  38  197  fif.)  Ninurud 
or  Ninurut  which  may  become  Ninurtu;  and  Ninurta,  is  explained  as  ‘Lord 
of  Armenia’  or  as  ‘Lord  of  Iron.’  The  latest  is  that  of  Luckenbill  (AJSL 
35  59  f.),  who  inquires  whether  it  isn’t  clear  “that  renders  the 

cuneiform  Mastu  pronounced,  however,  Anu-Mastu ? That  is  “the  sign 
usually  regarded  as  determinative  for  deity  is  to  be  pronounced,  just  as 
we  find  it  rendered  by  il  in  Il-Ba”  etc.  The  writer  cannot  follow  Lucken- 
bill in  this  since  an  means  ‘high,’  ‘heaven’  in  Sumerian,  and  dingir  means 
‘ god.  ’ 

19  In  spite  of  all  Luckenbill  has  written  (AJSL  35  59  f.),  the  writer  sees 
no  reason  for  modifying  his  view  on  this ; see  also  Chapter  XVII. 

20  The  view  was  advanced  by  the  writer  (JAOS  28  135  f.)  that  the  first 


74 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  THE  AMORITES. 


p.  328),  but  the  initial  n appears  to  have  been  dropped;  like  Isin 
from  Nisin.  Although  Inurta,  who  was  unquestionably  a goddess 
originally,  became  a god  in  later  Babylonia,  traces  are  found  show- 
ing that  her  former  sex  was  recognized.  In  a letter  found  in  the 
British  Museum  (Harper  ABL  358:  6),  and  in  one  in  the  Museum 
of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania  ( HAV  p.  424)  the  salutation 
repeats  the  name ; in  the  former  dNin-IB  dNin-IB  is  written,  and  in 
the  latter  dMAS  u dMAS,  showing  that  both  the  god  and  the  goddess 
are  addressed.  Additional  proof  that  dNin-IB  or  Inurta  is  to  be 
identified  with  Amurru  or  Uru  is  to  be  found  in  the  explanatory 
list  of  deities.21 

In  the  Amarna  letters  there  is  a place  Bit  Nin-IB  mentioned  and 
also  a temple  in  or  near  Jerusalem  called  alBit  dNin-IB;  showing 
that  the  deity  was  worshipped  in  that  region.  One  scholar  had 
suggested  that  Nin-IB  is  here  an  ideogram  for  Shamash,  and  that 
the  place  referred  to  is  Beth-Shemesh.  Another  has  suggested  that 
it  stands  for  Antum,  and  the  name  is  Beth-Anath.  The  only  basis 
for  these  suggestions  is  that  such  shrines  are  known  to  have  existed 
in  Palestine ; but  this  does  not  appear  to  have  much  force.  Since 
Antn  was  the  consort  of  Anu,  Ashirtu  of  Ashir,  Mashtu  of  Mash, 
etc.,  it  seems  reasonable,  as  mentioned  above,  that  Urtu(a)  should 
have  been  the  consort  of  the  Amorite  Uru.  Since  the  name  Jeru- 
salem was  written  Uru-salim  in  the  Amarna  tablets  and  the  same 
in  the  Nabataean  inscriptions  (□L,iy“ilX),  there  is  every  reason 

two  characters  of  the  Aramaic  represented  the  Sumerian  en  = ba‘  at. 
This  finds  support  in  the  name  En-TJr-ta  (CT  24,  25  : 101)  ; hut,  in  the  light 
of  the  recent  find,  the  prefixed  element  probably  must  be  regarded  as  being 
originally  ( n)in  i.  e.,  ba‘ alat  “lady,”  although  after  the  deity  was  mas- 
culinized and  the  initial  n dropped,  it  may  have  been  construed  as  en 
“lord”;  then  since  in  the  late  period  r frequently  passes  into  s,  In-urta 
could  be  pronounced  In-usta,  which  would  be  reproduced  in  Aramaic 
’most  (n^lJN). 

21  d u.rumjjrn^piN)  — Nin-IB  sa  al-li,  CT  25  11:26.  Another  passage 
shows  that  dNin-uru(PIN)  = dNin-IB,  CT  25  12:20;  and  again  that 
Amurru,  written  dMar  = dNin-IB,  III  It  57 : 81  cd.  There  can  be  little 
doubt  but  that.  Nin-Mar w (cf.  Nin-Markl-ra . Allotte  de  la  Fuye  Doc.  Presar- 
goniques  55:1,  7),  who  was  so  prominently  worshipped  at  Lagash,  was 
another  writing  of  the  name.  (On  Markl  see  also  Chapter  X.) 


VII.  THE  NAME  AMURRU  OR  TJRTJ. 


75 


to  think  that  it  contains  the  name  of  the  deity  Uru  (see  Amurru 
175  ft.),  and  it  seems  reasonable  to  propose  that  Bit  dNin-IB  is  the 
cuneiform  representation  of  a shrine  of  his  consort,  which  was  near 
the  city.  That  it  appears  in  the  Babylonian  ideogram  which  means 
ba‘  alat  Urta,  is  simply  due  to  the  use  of  the  Babylonian  language 
and  script  at  that  time  in  Palestine. 

The  question  arises,  where  is  the  habitat  of  the  deity  Amurru, 
whose  name  was  written  Amar  or  Amur,  Mar,  Mer,  Mir,  ’Ur,  and 
his  consort  Martu  ( Maslitu ) or  Urtu.  The  answer  to  this  question 
will  doubtless  point  to  the  imperial  city  of  the  great  land  Amurru 
(see  Chapter  X). 


VIII 

AMORITES  IN  BABYLONIA 


Since  we  are  entirely  dependent  upon  data  gathered  from  con- 
temporaneous records  of  Babylonia  for  our  knowledge  of  the  early 
existence  of  Amorite  history  and  civilization,  these  are  first  con- 
sidered. 

The  Amorites  have  handed  down  a list  of  ten  antediluvian  kings, 
corresponding  to  the  ten  antediluvian  patriarchs.  True,  they  are 
called  Chaldean  kings,  but  they  nevertheless  are  Amorite,  the 
legend  doubtless  having  been  brought  into  Babylonia  with  the 
people  who  migrated  from  the  West.  Berossus,  who  lived  in  the 
first  half  of  the  third  century  B.  C.,  wrote  three  books  which  he 
dedicated  to  Antioclms,  king  of  Syria.  Unfortunately,  with  the 
exception  of  a few  fragments  copied  by  Apollodorus  and  Poly- 
histor,  and  which  were  quoted  by  Eusebius  and  Syncellus,  his 
important  work  has  been  lost.  The  antediluvian  kings  mentioned 
in  these  fragments  are  as  follows.1 * 


1 

2 


3 


I 

5 


6 

7 

8 


’A \ajpo?,  Aloros  ; e/c  Bay3uA.£>z/o?  XaXSato?  10  Saren  (36000  years) 
’ A A.a7rapo?,  Alaparus,  Alaporus,  Alapaurus  ; filins  Alori  3 Saren 
’ A/jl7)\(dv , ’A/iuWapo?,  Almelon  ; 6 etc  UavTi/3i/3\(i)v , ck 
7ro'\ea)9  naim/3t/3\ia<.',  ex  Chaldaeis  e civitate 
Pautibiblon  13  Saren 

’A fj-fj-evcov,  Ammenon  ; 6 XaXSato?,  ex  Chaldaeis  e Par- 

mibiblon  (Pautibiblon)  12  Saren 

MeyaXapos,  MeyaXavo<;,  Amegalarns;  he  YlavjifiifiXwv 

7 roXeco?  18  Saren 

Aaeui'o?,  A acoi,  Da(v)onus  ; -rroipLTjv  in  UavTi(3if3\(ov  10  Saren 

Ei'eScopayo?,  E Edorancbus,  Edoreschus ; e/c 

YlavTiftifiXtov  18  Saren 

’ Ap.ep.\jfivo<;,  Amempbsinus ; Xa\8aio?  he  Xapay^wv, 

Cbaldaeus  e Lancbaris  (Chancharis)  10  Saren 


1 The  list  is  taken  from  Zimmern  KAT 3 p.  531. 

(76) 


VIII.  AMORITES  IN  BABYLONIA. 


77 


9 ’fb-ta/m??,  ’A p8ari)<;,  Otiartes  ; XaXScuo?  i/c  Aapa^cov, 

Chaldaeus  e Lancharis  8 Saren 

10  S iaov0po<;,  1,iaov0po<;,  ’Ziaidpos,  Xisuthrus ; aids  'flTiap- 

tov  18  Saren 

Zimmern,  Hommel,  Jeremias,  Sayce,  Kittel  and  others,  as  men- 
tioned in  Amurru  63  ff.,  consider  that  several  of  the  names  were 
translated  into  Hebrew,  and  form  the  list  of  antediluvian  patri- 
archs of  the  Old  Testament,  while  others  are  considered  equivalent 
to  Babylonian  names.  Aloros  has  been  generally  regarded  the 
same  as  the  Babylonian  mother-goddess  Aruru2  who  assisted  in  the 
work  of  creation.  The  chief  reason  why  this  goddess  is  considered 
the  same  as  the  first  Chaldean  king  is  because  she  is  the  ‘fashioner 
of  mankind.’  Alaporns  has  been  considered  to  be  a corruption  of 
Adapa,  which  is  thought  to  be  the  original  of  Adam.  Amillaros 
or  Almelon  is  said  to  be  the  Babylonian  amelu,  “man,”  which  was 
translated,  into  the  Hebrew,  Enosh,  “man.”  Ammenon  is 
regarded  the  same  as  ummdnu,  ‘ ‘ workman,  ’ ’ which  was  translated 
into  Qenan  or  Cain,  ‘ ‘ smith,  ’ ’ although  no  such  personal  name  as 
ummdnu  is  known.  Megalaros  or  Amegalarus  is  considered  by 
Hommel  to  be  Amel-Aruru.  Edoranchus,  the  seventh  king  corre- 
sponding to  Enoch,  seventh  in  the  Hebrew  list,  has  been  regarded 
the  same  as  En-me-dur-an-Jci,  a mythological  king  of  Sippar,  who 
received  revelations  from  his  deity,  and  ruled  365  years,  the  same 
number  that  Enoch  lived.  The  king  Edoranchus,  however,  ruled 
64,800  years  according  to  the  list  of  Berossus.  Otiartes  has  been 
regarded  the  same  as  Ubar-Twtu,  and  as  Atar-hasis  (see  also  Bar- 
ton A SB  271). 

The  writer  believes  that  these  scholars  are  mistaken  in  their  sup- 
position that  the  Hebrew  names  of  the  antediluvian  patriarchs 
originated  in  this  way.  Although  both  lists  contain  ten  names,  and 
the  tenth  in  both  is  a diluvian  hero,  they  seem  to  have  nothing  else 
in  common  (see  Amurru  63  f.).  The  coincidence  that  the  number 
of  years  Enoch  lived,  and  the  Sippar  king  ruled,  whose  name  is 
written  in  Sumerian  En-Me-Dur-An-Ki,  is  the  same,  is  striking, 

2 Poebel,  however,  has  proposed  identification  of  this  name  with  LAL-ur- 
alim-ma  of  Nippur.  UMBS  IV  1,  110. 


78 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  THE  AMORITES. 


but  any  relation  between  the  two  individuals  or  their  names  is 
scarcely  to  be  regarded  as  possible.  Moreover,  since  the  other 
names  are  in  a Semitic  form,  it  (EueSwpaxos)  would  be  preferable  to 
read  it  also  Semitic,  perhaps  Ebed-’Ur  ahu,  i.  e.,  “Ebed-’Ur,  the 
brother,”  namely  of  the  preceding  king.  Following  in  the  second 
column  are  the  comparisons  and  identifications  or  equivalents  that 
have  been  proposed  by  different  scholars,  and  in  the  third,  those 
offered  by  the  writer : 

1 ’AAwpos,  Aloros 

2 ’ AXaTrapos,  Alaparus 

3 ’A/xtAAapos,  ’A/njXuv,  Almelon 

4 ’Ap.fj.evwv,  Ammenon 

5 MeyaAapos,  Amegalarus 

6 Aaujvos,  Aaojs,  Davonus 

7 EucScupa^os,  Ecloranchus 

8 ’AfjLe/jnpLvo<;,  Amemphsinus 

9 OrtapTT^s,  ’ApSaras,  Otiartes 
10  H irrovOpO'i,  2tc rovOpos,  XisuthrUS 

The  fact  that  the  names  of  these  Chaldean  antediluvian  kings, 
which  the  Babylonians  recognized  as  their  progenitors,  are  com- 
posed of  Amorite  name  elements  besides  five  or  six  of  them  being- 
compounded  with  the  name  of  the  chief  Amorite  deity,  Uru,  is  cer- 
tainly striking  proof  that  the  Semitic  Babylonian  looked  upon 
Amurru  as  his  original  home. 

From  Amurru  there  went  forth  peoples  who  settled  Babylonia 
at  a very  early  time.  We  are  reminded  of  Genesis : “And  it  came 

s There  can  be  little  doubt  that  Aloros  is  El-Uni  (see  Chapter  VII,  etc., 
also  see  Amurru  p.  64,  spring  of  1909). 

* Friend  or  Ox  of  Uru ; cf.  a place  name  (Josh.  18:28)  ; 

Samaria  Ostraca;  A-ga-al-Marduk  BA  VI  5 p.  83:  Im-me-ir-i-li,  ibid.  98. 

5 No  comment  is  needed  on  this  identification. 

8  Cf.  nV?pQ  1 Chron.  8 : 32  etc. 

7 Cf.  the  place  name  Ar-data  along  the  coast  of  the  Mediterranean,  men- 
tioned several  times  in  the  Amarna  letters,  once  written  El-da-ta  (139:5). 
With  this  name  cf.  olAr-wa-da  (ibid.  101 : 13,  etc.),  once  written  a,Uri(URU)- 
iva-da  (104:42). 


Aruru 

Adapa 

Amelu 

ummanu 

Amel-Aruru 


El-Uruz 
Alap-Uru 4 
Amel-tiru5 

Megal-VruG 


En-Me-D  ur-A  n-Ki 

Amel-Sin 

Dbar-Tutu 


Ebed-TJru  ahu 
Amel-Sin 
Ar-data 7 


VIII.  AMOEITES  IK  BABYLOKIA. 


79 


to  pass,  as  they  journeyed  east  (or  from  Qedem8)  that  they  found 
a plain  in  the  land  of  Shin‘ar  and  they  dwelt  there”  (Gen.  11:  2). 

| Babylonia  was  ruled  during  its  long  history  by  many  foreign 
f "peoples,  the  Amorites,  Elamites,  Cassites,  Assyrians,  Chaldeans, 
Persians,  Greeks,  etc.9  It  seems  from  what  follows  that  the  Amor- 
ites in  more  than  one  period  conquered  and  ruled  Babylonia. 

More  than  a decade  ago  the  obverse  of  a fragment  of  a tablet 
was  published  containing  the  rulers  of  the  Ur  and  Nisin  dynasties 
(BE  20,  47).  The  reverse  of  this  tablet  has  since  been  published 
by  Poebel.  This,  together  with  two  other  tablets,  also  found  at 
Nippur  in  a fragmentary  condition,  contain  the  earliest  known 
rulers  of  Babylonia.  It  is  supposed  that  when  complete  the  tablets 
enumerated  all  the  kings  from  the  time  of  the  deluge  to  the  time 
they  were  inscribed.  The  one  which  was  written  apparently  in  the 
reign  of  Enlihbani,  the  eleventh  king  of  the  Nisin  dynasty,  records 
that  king  as  the  one-hundred  and  thirty-fourth  from  the  deluge. 
The  other  tablet,  it  is  thought,  was  written  in  the  time  of  Damiq- 
ilishu,  the  last  king  of  that  dynasty.  ( UMBS  V 2,  3 and  5. ) 

The  first  four  kingdoms  that  have  been  preserved  on  these  frag- 
ments are  Kish,  Erech,  Ur,  and  Awan.  Unfortunately  none  of  the 
rulers’  names  of  the  last  mentioned  have  been  preserved.  Prior 
to  the  discovery  of  these  tablets,  even  the  existence  of  the  dynas- 
ties was  unknown.  The  rulers’  names  that  have  been  preserved 
of  the  first  three,  including  variants,  follow: 

8 There  are  those  who  hold  that  they  came  from  the  country  east  of 
Babel.  Most  scholars,  however,  translate  miqqedem  “eastward”  or 
“toward  the  east,”  because  of  Gen.  13:11.  A recently  discovered  frag- 
ment of  the  Egyptian  Sinuhe  legend  shows  that  the  country  east  of  Byblos 
was  called  Qedem;  and  it  is  not  unlikely  that  this  region  is  meant  as  the 
quarter  whence  the  Semites  referred  to  came,  who  moved  into  Shinar. 

9 In  the  period  of  1902  years  prior  to  the  time  of  Alexander,  Berossus 
refers  to  dynasties  consisting  of  8 Median  kings,  49  Chaldean,  9 Arabian, 
and  two  others  of  11  and  45  kings  each  (see  Meyer,  Geschichte  des  Alter- 
iums  I 2,  320)  ; but  there  is  no  corroboration  from  the  inscriptions  of  the 
existence  of  these  dynasties.  Olmstead  has  called  the  writer’s  attention  to 
the  fact  that  in  the  Armenian  translation  of  Eusebius,  which,  as  is  known, 
ultimately  goes  back  to  Berossus,  Mar  is  used  in  place  of  the  usual  Medes, 
to  which  Sehnable  recently  referred  ( OLZ  1911,  19  f.). 


80 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  THE  AMORITES. 


Kingdom  op  Kish 

9.  Ka-lu-mu-un  ( Ga-lu-mu-un ) 900  years 

10.  Zu-ga-gi-ib  {Zu-ga-ki-ib)  840  “ 

11.  Ar-wu-u  ( Ar-wi , Ar-bu-um),  son  of  a muskinu  720  “ 

12.  E-ta-na  ( dE-ta-na ),  the  shepherd  635  “ 

13.  Pi-li-qam,  son 410  “ 

14.  En-Me-Nun-na  ( En-Men-Nun-na ) 611  “ 

15.  Me-Lam-Kiski,  son 900  “ 

16.  Mas-Sal-Nun-na,  son  1.200  “ 

17.  Mes-Za-Mug{*l) , son 

Kingdom  op  Eanna  (Erech) 

1.  Mes-ki-in-ga-se-ir,  son  of  Shamash,  high  priest  and  king  325  years 

2.  En-Me-ir-Kar,  son 420  “ 

3.  dShar-ban-da,  the  shepherd 1,200  “ 

4.  dDumu-zi,  the  hunter  from  II A- A 100  ‘ ‘ 

5.  ‘’Gis-bil-ga-Mesli,  son  of  the  high  priest  of  Kullab  126  “ 

Kingdom  of  Ur 

1.  Mes-An-Ni-Pad-da  80  years 

2.  Mes-Ki-Ag-Nun-na,  son  30  “ 

3.  E-lu  25  “ 

4.  Ba-lu 36  “ 


Tlie  first  five  names,  as  well  as  others,  are  written  in  a Semitic 
form;  while  the  rest  are  in  Sumerian.  All  that  can  be  said  of 
the  first  two  names,  Kalumun  “lamb,”  and  Zugagib  “scorpion,” 
is  that  they  are  Semitic.  Ar-wi-u  {Ar-bu-um),  according  to 
Chiera’s  Amorite  Syllabary,  is  Amorite.  Poebel  regards  the 
name  Etana  as  Sumerian,  and  suggests  as  its  meaning  e (d),  “the 
ascender,”  and  anna,  “heaven”  ( TJMBS  IV  1.  p.  112).  As  a 
meaning  for  the  name  of  a human,  this  would  be  without  parallel. 
Moreover,  this  would  be  a title  or  epithet,  and  not  the  name  of  a 
man.  It  seems  to  the  writer  that  the  name  is  unquestionably  the 
same  as  the  Old  Testament  Etan,  mentioned  a number  of  times  in 
Chronicles  and  Kings  and  in  the  heading  of  the  eighty-ninth 
Psalm.10 

10  This  has  been  anticipated  years  ago  by  Professor  Jastrow,  see  BA  III 
p.  376. 


VIII.  AMORITES  IN  BABYLONIA. 


81 


Etana  apparently  was  not  of  royal  origin,  for  he  was  called  “the 
shepherd.  ” “ He  ruled  all  lands  ’ ’ ; which  it  is  reasonable  to  inter- 

pret as  including  Amurru.  In  the  epic  in  which  Etana  is  the  hero, 
which  was  inscribed  in  the  Assyrian  period,  there  are  no  earmarks 
of  its  having  been  written  originally  in  Sumerian.  The  early 
Babylonian  fragment  in  the  library  of  Mr.  J.  Pierpont  Morgan 
shows  the  same.  Further,  the  remark  of  Sliamash,  in  the  epic,  to 
the  serpent,  “go  now  and  take  the  road  to  the  mountain,”  as  well 
as  the  part  played  by  the  eagle,  point  at  least  to  a mountainous 
district  in  which  the  myth  originated.  Perhaps  Etana,  who  was  a 
usurper,  hailed  from  the  West.  Moreover,  as  mentioned  above, 
his  name  is  West  Semitic. 

The  name  of  his  son  and  successor,  which  is  read  by  Barton  Pi-li- 
qam  (gam,),  is  also  West  Semitic.  Barton  explained  the  name  as 
being  Sumerian,  meaning  “with  intelligence  to  build”  ( AB  267). 
As  a meaning  for  a personal  name,  this  also  would  be  without  par- 
allel. It  would  seem  that  a comparison  with  Peleg  of  the  Old 
Testament  would  be  most  reasonable.11  There  are  several  other 
names  as  Pi-la-qu  in  the  Assyrian  period,  Bu-la-aq-qu  in  the  Cas- 
site,  and  Be-la-qu  of  the  First  Dynasty,  that  can  properly  be  com- 
pared. These  words  may  mean  “axe”;  but  this  would  scarcely 
be  an  appropriate  meaning  for  a child’s  name.  The  root  palag 
in  Hebrew  and  Aramaic  means  “to  separate,  split.”  Peleg, 
“canal,”  is  a branch  stream,  which  is  separated  from  the  main 
body  of  water.  A child  could  be  referred  to  as  a “branch”  or  ‘ ‘ off- 
spring” of  the  deity.  Names  with  parallel  meanings  are  common, 
like  Pir’ -Amurru,  “offspring  of  Amurru,”  Bana-sa-Addu,  “crea- 
ture of  Addu,”  Apil-Nergal,  “child  of  Nergal,”  etc. 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  it  is  highly  probable  that  the  names  of  all 
the  known  rulers  up  to  this  time,  including  the  ten  antediluvian, 
are  Semitic,  and  also  that  most  of  them  are  West  Semitic  or  Amor- 
ite.  Following  these,  most  of  the  known  rulers’  names  appear  in 
a Sumerian  dress ; but  as  stated  in  the  introduction,  this  is  no 
proof  that  they  were  thus  pronounced.  In  fact,  there  are  many 

11  The  writer’s  attention  has  been  called  by  Olmstead  to  Phaliga  on  the 
Euphrates,  mentioned  by  Isidore,  and  the  Pallacopas  canal,  with  its  survival 
in  Faluja,  west  of  Bagdad. 


82 


THE  EMPIBE  OF  THE  AMOBITES. 


considerations  that  lead  us  to  believe  that  these  early  rulers  are 
also  Semites. 

The  last  two  names  of  the  Kish  Dynasty,  as  well  as  three  in  the 
following  two  dynasties,  are  compounded  with  the  name  of  Mesh 
(or  Mash).  This  is  the  name  of  a deity  whose  worship  was 
brought  from  Amurru  (see  Chapters  XII  and  XVII).  The  deity 
En-Me-ir  in  the  name  En-Me-ir-Kar  appears  to  the  writer  to  be 
another  form  of  the  name  of  Ba‘ al  Mer  or  Amurru  (see  Chapter 
VII).  The  determinative  for  god  is  prefixed  to  the  names  of  the 
last  three  rulers  of  the  Erech  Dynasty,  who,  as  is  well  known, 
appear  as  deities  in  later  periods. 

The  name  Shar-ban-da  is  generally  read  Lugal-Ban-Da,  and 
regarded  as  Sumerian.  Such  names  as  Ja-wi{mi)-ba-an-da 
( Ta‘anach  3:  13),  . . .-ban-an-du  {ibid.  4:  13),  dMar-tu-ba-an-da 
in  a tablet  bought  in  Aleppo  {PS BA  1907,  97),  Su-ba-an-du{di ) 
(Amarna  Letters)  seem  to  show  that  it  is  West  Semitic.12  The 
fact  that  the  sign  meaning  “son”  was  selected  to  represent  the 
sound  ban  would  alone  suggest  this.  Shar-banda  figures  as  the 
hero  in  the  legend  concerning  the  tablets  of  fate  which  the  Zu  bird 
stole  from  the  palace  of  the  god  Enlil.  There  is  a distant  moun- 
tain, also  prominently  mentioned  in  this  myth,  called  Sabu. 

The  two  fragments  of  inscriptions  dealing  with  events  of  the 
time  of  Shar-banda  and  Dumu-Zi  refer  to  wars  with  Elam  on  the 
east,  Halma  (Aleppo)  to  the  north,  and  Tidnum  on  the  west 
( UMBS  V 20  and  21).  In  the  early  period  Tidnum  was  a name  of 
the  country  Amurru ; and  Halma  is  to  be  identified  as  Aleppo  (see 
Chapter  XII).  This  may  be  the  earliest  reference  to  an  invasion 
of  the  West,  although,  as  mentioned  above,  Etana  probably  con- 
quered Amurru. 

Dumu-Zi,  the  fourth  ruler  of  the  Eanna  kingdom,  is  considered 
the  same  as  the  Semitic  Tammuz,  who  in  later  periods  was 
regarded  as  the  husband  or  lover  of  Ishtar.  Besides  this  Sume- 
rian form,  the  name  is  written  Ta-mu-zu,  Du-’u-zu,  Du-u-zu,  Tam- 
muz (Hebrew),  Thammoza  (Syriac),  Sadovs,  etc.  The  general 

12  If  this  is  correct,  it  would  seem  that  the  name  of  an  official  nu-ban-da, 
frequently  found  in  Sumerian  documents,  is  also  Semitic;  in  which  case 
nu  may  have  been  a determinative  = amelu  {CT  12,  35 : 1 b). 


VIII.  AMORITES  IN  BABYLONIA. 


83 


understanding  is  that  the  Sumerian  Dumu-Zi,  which  means  “true 
or  faithful  son,”  is  the  original  form  of  the  name.  An  enlarged 
form  of  the  name  appears  as  Dumi-Zi-Ab-Zu,  “faithful  son  of  the 
deep,  ’ ’ which  some  think  has  been  suggested  by  the  picture  of  the 
sun  rising  out  of  the  ocean.  It  is  not  improbable  however,  that 
the  two  Sumerian  signs,  of  which  Dumu-Zi  is  composed,  represent 
the  pronunciation  of  a Semitic  name. 

The  name  of  Tammuz  ’ mother  is  written  dSir-du,  and  in  the  erne- 
sal  dialect,  dZe-ir-tu;  which  might  represent  a name  like  Sartu  or 
Sarah.  Moreover  the  dynastic  text  shows  that  he  was  a usurper. 
He  is  called  a hunter  or  fisherman  from  the  city  HA-A,  probably 
a city  of  the  land  Shubaru.13  In  the  Gilgamesh  epic,  which  is 
pre-eminently  Semitic,  the  goddess  Ishtar  fell  in  love  with  Tam- 
muz; and  after  his  death,  which  was  perhaps  premature,  she 
decreed  a yearly  wailing  for  him.  In  the  epic,  ‘ Ishtar ’s  descent 
into  Hades,’  the  goddess,  in  her  efforts  to  restore  her  youthful 
lover  to  life,  descends  into  the  underworld.  He  is  referred  to  also 
in  the  Adapa  legend  as  living  in  the  heavenly  place.  It  is  not 
unlikely  that  Adapa  also  will  be  found  to  be  an  early  Semitic  king 
who  had  been  deified. 

The  worship  of  the  youthful  god  who  personifies  the  dying  of 

13  Poebel  has  called  attention  to  the  name  being  written  A-IIA  in  BA 
VI,  p.  675  : 25,  and  in  SBH  80  : 25,  26 ; that  the  city  is  mentioned  in  the  two 
texts  above  referred  to,  as  being  destroyed  at  the  time  of  Shar-banda  and 
Dumu-Zi  ( UMBS  IV  1,  p.  117)  ; that  in  an  incantation  text  (CT  15:6)  the 
ideogram  is  rendered  Shu-ba-ri , and  Shu-’a-a-ra  in  the  above  two  texts  (in 
BA  and  SBH ) which  apparently  point  to  the  pronunciation  Shuwari  (for 
Shubari ) ; that  in  II  R 57,  IV,  the  ideogram  is  glossed  tuba;  and  that  in 
IV  R 36,  1 col.  1 : 26-28  there  are  three  cities  written  with  the  same 
ideogram,  which  in  each  case  was  pronounced  differently.  He  concludes 
that  the  city  referred  to  was  in  the  southwestern  part  of  Sumer,  since  in 
tablets  of  the  Ur  dynasty  a city  HA-A  is  mentioned  together  with  Erech, 
Eridu  and  Ur,  and  in  the  above  incantation  text  together  with  Eridu  (see 
UMBS  IV  1,  p.  121).  It  is  not  impossible  that  there  was  a city  of  Sumer 
whose  name  was  written  HA-A;  but  it  is  altogether  possible  that  another 
of  the  three  cities  mentioned  above,  perhaps  called  Shubaru,  is  here  referred 
to,  as  indicating  the  origin  of  the  ruler.  Moreover,  the  city  would  scarcely 
have  been  mentioned,  in  this  connection,  if  it  had  been  one  close  by  Erech. 


84 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  THE  AMORITES. 


vegetation  under  the  summer  lieat  each  year,  and  who  in  the  rising- 
in  the  spring  time  brings  forth  life  with  him  to  the  fields  and 
meadows,  is  known  to  have  existed  from  an  early  period  among 
the  Semites.  The  yearly  observance  of  the  feast  of  Adonis  at  such 
ancient  centres  as  Byblos,  in  fact,  it  can  be  said,  throughout  the 
Semitic  world,  has  led  scholars  in  former  decades  to  look  upon 
Syria  as  the  region  in  which  the  Tammuz- Adonis  myth  originated. 
True,  the  early  form  of  the  name  is  Sumerian,  as  stated,  as  well  as 
that  of  his  father  dNin-Gis-Zi-Da  (eme-sal  dUmun-Mu(s)-Zi-Da) , 
and  his  sister  dGestin-An-na;  but  this  is  no  criterion.  The  fact 
that  the  myth  is  a common  one  in  the  Semitic  world ; that  Tammuz 
was  a usurper  from  the  city  HA-A ; that  he  figures  in  so  many 
other  Semitic  epics,  and  legends,  as  well  as  in  Egypt  (see  Chapter 
XIV  and  Muller  EM  p.  120),  favors  a Semitic  origin,  with  the 
further  possibility  of  a confusion  of  tales  of  several  individuals  to 
form  the  Tammuz  myth. 

In  Amurru,  p.  79,  and  MI,  p.  3,  the  writer  endeavored  to  show 
that  Gis-bil-ga-Mes  (Gilgamesh)  was  a West  Semitic  name,  which 
contains  that  of  the  god  Mesh  or  Mash  and  that  the  epic  was 
peculiarly  identified  with  the  Lebanon  district.  More  recent 
researches  confirm  this,  and  point  to  the  fact  that  the  mortal  com- 
bat which  Gilgamesh  and  Enkidu  (also  a Western  Semite)  had 
with  Humbaba,  took  place  in  Amurru  (see  below). 

It  has  been  surmised  for  some  years  that  Gilgamesh  was  an  early 
king  of  Erech.  The  early  dynastic  list,  above  referred  to,  proves 
this  conclusively.  Aelian  in  a fable  ( De  Natura  Animalium  12 : 
21)  gives  the  name  of  Gilgamesh ’s  grandfather,  on  his  mother’s 
side,  namely,  Semachoros  (Se^xopo?)  which  is  Semak-Ur,  a West 
Semitic  name,  cf.  Semak-Jau 14  of  the  Old  Testament,  He  was  sup- 
posed to  be  the  son  of  a priest  of  Kullab,  a part  of  Erech,  and  N in- 
Sun,  who  was  later  deified.  Unfortunately  the  name  Nin-Sun  is 
in  a Sumerian  form,  but  if  her  father’s  name  is  correctly  given  by 
Aelian,  she  doubtless  also  bore  a West  Semitic  name,  which  was 
reproduced  by  this  ideogram. 

It  was  recognized  years  ago  that  the  epic  in  the  Assyrian  was  of  a 
composite  character.  Naturally  it  is  not  impossible  that  some  of 

14  That  isirvrrjD;  cf.  also  ltTPEP’ . 


VIII.  AMORITES  IN  BABYLONIA. 


85 


the  tales  embodied  into  the  epic  were  of  Sumerian  origin,  although 
at  the  present  time  this  cannot  he  determined  to  be  the  case,  as 
there  is  nothing  in  the  epic  to  show  that  it  was  originally  Sumerian. 
True,  there  are  a few  names  like  Gilgamesh,  En-ki-du,  Dumu-Zi, 
Ubara-Tutu,  etc.,  that  appear  to  be  written  in  Sumerian ; hut  this 
alone  is  not  a criterion,  as  mentioned  above,  that  they  represent 
Sumerians. 

The  name  of  Gilgamesh ’s  ‘double’  has  heretofore  been  read  as 
if  Semitic,  namely,  dEa(En-Ki)-bani(Du)  and  dEa-tabu(Dug ) ; 
but  more  recently  scholars  have  been  inclined  to  consider  the  name 
Sumerian,  dEn-ki-du.  This  reading  has  been  influenced  by  the 
word  en-gi-du,  which  occurs  in  a syllabary.15  There  are,  however, 
considerations  which  make  it  appear  that  the  name  was  originally 
Semitic,  like  the  rulers’  names  of  the  Erechian  dynasty  during 
which  Enkidu  lived.  This  being  true,  an  explanation  is  in  order  as 
to  how  the  name  came  to  have  been  pronounced  in  Sumerian. 

The  discovery  of  two  tablets  belonging  to  a version  of  the  Gilga- 
mesh epic,  written  about  fifteen  hundred  years  earlier  than  the 
Ninevite  version,  which  are  now  in  the  Pennsylvania  and  Yale 
Babylonian  Collections,  throws  important  light  on  several  phases 
of  the  question  under  discussion.  The  former,  as  shown  by  the 
colophon,  is  the  second  tablet  of  the  series,  and  the  latter  presum- 
ably the  third.16 

The  writing  of  the  name  in  the  Yale  and  Pennsylvania  tablets 
is  dEn-Ki-Dug,  i.  e.,  “ En-Ki  or  Ea  is  good”,  which  must  have  been 
read  dEn-ki-du,  in  view  of  the  other  readings.  This  offers  no  diffi- 
culty, as  the  apocopation  of  a final  g is  common  in  Sumerian.  In 
the  late  Ninevite  version  the  name  is  written  dEn-Ki-Du  which 
means  “En-Ki,  or  Ea,  is  the  builder.”  Both  are  common  name 
formations.  If  the  hero  was  a Sumerian  and  bore  a Sumerian 

13  See  CT  18,  30:10;  also  TJMBS  IV  1 p.  126 ; and  Amurru  p.  81. 

3,1  Poebel,  who  was  instrumental  in  the  Pennsylvania  tablet  being  pur- 
chased, published  an  advanced  notice  of  it  in  OLZ,  1914,  col.  4.  Langdon 
subsequently  published  the  text  and  a translation  of  it  UMBS  X 3.  The 
Yale  tablet,  as  well  as  a translation  of  the  Pennsylvania,  will  shortly  be 
published  by  Jastrow  and  Clay,  in  An  Old  Babylonian  Version  of  the 
Gilgamesh  Epic. 


86 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  THE  AMORITES. 


name,  we  unquestionably  have  handed  down  to  us  a peculiar  mix- 
ture of  elements  with  different  meanings.  If,  on  the  other  hand, 
we  assume  that  he  was  a Semite,  and  lived  at  a time  when  names 
were  written  with  Sumerian  ideograms,  and  that  later,  perhaps 
following  a dark  period  of  literary  inactivity,  the  legend  was 
revived  when  the  original  meaning  and  reading  of  the  name  were 
lost  sight  of,  we  can  understand  how  this  confusion  took  place. 
There  are  reasons  for  believing  that  Enlddu  (or  Ea-tabu)  was 
not  only  a Semite  but  that  he  came  from  Amurru. 

The  country  whence  Enkidu  came  was  mountainous.  In  the 
Pennsylvania  tablet  the  following  passage  occurs  concerning  En- 
kidu. The  mother  of  Gilgamesh,  in  speaking  of  Enkidu,  says: 
“Some  one,  0 Gilgamesh,  who  like  thee  is  born  in  the  plain,  and 
the  mountain  hath  reared  him,  etc.”  In  the  Yale  tablet  this  pas- 
sage occurs:  “Enkidu  opened  his  mouth  and  spake  to  Gilgamesh, 
‘Know,  my  friend,  in  the  mountain  when  I moved  about  with  the 
cattle  to  a distance  of  one  double  mile  of  the  territory  of  the  forest, 
I penetrated  into  its  interior  to  Huwawa,  etc.’  ” Several  passages 
in  the  Ninevite  version  also  show  that  Enkidu  came  from  the  moun- 
tains. “Ere  thou  earnest  down  from  the  mountains  Gilgamesh 
beheld  thee  in  a dream.”  Again,  “Then  came  Enkidu,  whose 
home  was  the  mountains,  who  with  gazelles  ate  herbs,  etc.”  The 
fragments  of  the  Ninevite  recension  which  King  published  ( PSBA 
1914,  64  ff.),  in  which  Gilgamesh,  who  was  apparently  wounded,  is 
advised  to  entrust  himself  to  Enkidu ’s  guidance  through  the  cedar 
forest,  read:  “Let  Enkidu  go  before  thee.  He  knows  the  path 
through  the  cedar  forest.  He  is  full  of  battle,  he  shows  fight.  Let 
Enkidu  protect  his  friend ; let  him  keep  his  comrade  safe.  ” These 
and  other  passages  show  that  Enkidu  hailed  from  a mountainous 
district,  which  contained  cedar  forests. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  Dr.  William  Hayes  Ward’s  studies 
of  the  art  as  displayed  by  the  seal  cylinders  depicting  Gilgamesh 
and  Enkidu  led  him  to  believe  that  the  myth  preserved  the 
memory  of  its  origin,  not  in  the  low  swamps  of  Babylonia, 
but  in  a land  of  hills  and  forests  {Seal  Cylinders,  62  if.,  414).  He 
observed  that  Gilgamesh  in  the  early  cylinders  fights  a bison,  an 
animal  of  the  mountains  and  more  formidable  than  the  lion,  but 
that  later  the  Babylonian  artists  affected  the  water  buffalo  of  their 


VIII.  AMORITES  IN  BABYLONIA. 


87 


own  region.  Enkidu,  he  also  noted,  always  retained  the  horns 
of  the  bison.  In  one  cylinder  (No.  177)  containing  the  Gilgamesh 
motif,  Ward  called  attention  to  a cypress  tree  growing  on  a moun- 
tain. The  art  therefore  as  well  as  the  passages  quoted  above 
indicate  that  Enkidu  had  come  from  a mountainous  district. 

In  this  connection,  it  might  be  mentioned  also  that  in  the  art  of 
the  seal  cylinders,  Enkidu  though  not  as  tall  in  stature,  is 
always  represented  as  a duplicate  of  Gilgamesh.  This  is  admir- 
ably illustrated  by  a terra  cotta  relief  found  in  the  Yale  Babylonian 
Collection  (see  Art  and  Archaeology  p.  73).  This  would  make  it 
seem  scarcely  probable  that  one  was  a Semite  and  the  other  a Su- 
merian. Moreover,  they  both  have  curly  hair,  and  wear  beards, 
which  is  characteristic  of  the  Semites  as  portrayed  in  Babylonian 
art. 

The  story  of  the  long  journey  that  Gilgamesh  and  Enkidu  made 
to  the  cedar  forest,  which  surrounded  the  stronghold  of  Humbaba, 
has  been  supposed  by  most  scholars  to  refer  to  Elam.  The  reason 
for  this  view  has  not  been  that  cedar  forests  are  known  to  have 
existed  in  that  region,  but  because  the  name  Humbaba  had  been 
identified  with  the  Elamite  god  Humba  (also  written  Humban, 
Humman,  TJmman,  Umba,  Amba,  etc.).  This  has  been  done  in 
spite  of  the  fact  that  the  name  of  the  individual  Humbaba,  or 
Hubaba,  only  slightly  resembles  the  name  of  the  Elamitic  deity; 
for  in  every  instance  known  the  name  of  the  former  is  written  with 
the  final  consonant  doubled,  while  the  latter  is  not. 

The  name  Humbaba  unquestionably  is  Amorite,  and  not  Elam- 
itic. This  is  definitely  shown,  by  the  form  of  the  name  on  a 
tablet  belonging  to  the  Gilgamesh  epic  in  the  Yale  Babylonian  Col- 
lection. In  the  Amorite  Syllabary  published  by  Chiera,  there  is 
a name  written  Hu-wa-wa  ( HU-PI-PI ).  This  name  occurs  also  in 
the  Ur  Dynasty  tablets.16  And  it  also  occurs  in  an  omen,  following 
one  which  mentions  Hu-um-ba-ba  ( CT  28  6:  3-4).  In  the  Yale 
Gilgamesh  tablet  the  name  is  written  Hu-wa-wa,  the  same  as  in 
the  Amorite  Syllabary.  This  as  well  as  other  reasons  make  it  per- 
fectly reasonable  to  conclude  that  the  cedars  referred  to  are  those 

16  BE  3 11 : 12 ; 147 : 5,  HLC  1,  22,  26,  etc.,  in  Omen  texts,  CT  28,  21 : 8 
etc.  » 


88 


THE  EMPIEE  OF  THE  AMOEITES. 


of  the  Lebanon  district,  which  has  frequently  been  suggested;17 
and  which  also  prove  that  the  name  is  the  same  as  Kombabos 
(Ko^a/?os),  who  appears  as  the  guardian  of  Queen  Stratonike  in 
the  legend  concerning  the  construction  of  the  sanctuary  at  Hier- 
apolis  (Lucan  De  dea  Syria),  with  which  name  Humbaba  has 
frequently  been  compared.  Moreover,  the  name  is  actually  found 
also  in  the  Old  Testament  Hobab,18  the  son  of  Reuel  (Numb.  10:  29, 
Judg.  4:  11,  etc.). 

In  the  omens,  the  name  Huwawa  suggests  a monster.19  Two  of 
the  omens  read : “ If  a women  gives  birth  to  a Huwawa,  the  king  and 
his  sons  will  leave  the  city.  If  a sheep  gives  birth  to  a lion  with 
a face  of  a Huwawa,  the  prince  will  be  without  a rival,  and  will 
destroy  the  land  of  the  enemy.”20  In  the  epic  the  name  of  this 
Amorite  despot,  “whose  roar  is  a deluge,  whose  breath  is  death,” 
has  the  determinative  for  deity,  the  same  as  the  name  Gilgamesli 
(which  is  written  dGis)  and  Enkidu. 

Since  it  is  reasonably  certain  that  the  cedar  forests  of  Humbaba 
were  those  of  Amurru,  and  this  is  the  region  whence  Enkidu  came, 
it  is  highly  probable  that  the  latter  also  was  an  Amorite.  This 
being  true,  there  can  be  little  question  that  the  Sumerian  form  of 
his  name,  as  above,  represented  a Semitic  name,  which  may  have 
been  Ea-tob.  This  would  appear  very  reasonable,  especially  if 
the  contention  of  Chiera  that  Ea  is  a West  Semitic  god  should 
prove  correct.  Jastrow  would  now  propose  the  reading  Ba‘  al-tdb 
as  the  Semitic  original  of  the  name ; that  is,  En-Ki  “lord  of  land” 
represents  the  West  Semitic  Ba‘al. 

As  stated,  the  epic  is  not  only  Semitic,  but  there  are  many  ele- 
ments which  show  connections  with  the  Western  Semites,  such  as 
the  gods  Girra,  Urra,  Adad,  Irnini,  Antu,  etc.,  and  personal  names 
such  as  Atrahasis,  Buzur- Amurru,  etc.  Whether  Gilgamesli,  who 

17  Gressman,  Das  Gilgamesh-Epos,  p.  Ill,  f.  1;  Poebel  VMBS  IV  1,  p. 
224;  and  Jastrow,  Sacred  Books  and  Early  Literature  of  the  East  I,  p.  193. 

18  Htibaba  = Hombaba  = Hobbaba  = Hobaba. 

19  The  passages  where  it  occurs  are  CT  28,  3:17,  4:89,  6:3-4,  14:12, 
21 : 28.  I am  indebted  to  Professor  Jastrow  for  these  references. 

20  In  the  passage  CT  28.  6 : 3-4,  both  the  early  and  late  forms  of  the  name 
appear. 


VIII.  AMORITES  IN  BABYLONIA. 


89 


was  a usurper,  was  from  the  West,  or  not,  remains  to  be  deter- 
mined. If  he  were,  the  question  arises,  what  was  his  western  name  ? 

In  Amurru,  p.  79,  the  endeavor  was  made  to  show  that  the  name 
which  became  contracted  into  Gilgamesh  means  “the  axe  of  Mash” 
(see  also  Ml  p.  3 n.).  Such  a name,  however,  would  scarcely  be 
appropriate  for  a child.  How  is  it  to  be  explained  ? It  is  possible 
to  offer  several  conjectures ; but  let  the  following  suffice. 
The  hero’s  name  may  originally  have  been  Bilga-Mash  or  Pilig- 
Mash,  and  meant  “the  offshoot  of  the  god  Mash.”  Such  forma- 
tions and  meanings  are  very  common  (see  the  discussion  on  Peleg, 
above).  In  later  years,  after  he  had  become  the  legendary  hero, 
to  whom  were  attributed  the  exploits  of  Enkidu,  and  perhaps 
others,  as  is  shown  from  the  Pennsylvania  tablet,21  his  name  was 
etymologically  interpreted  in  accordance  with  the  reputation  he 
had  acquired  just  as  is  done  in  the  Old  Testament  in  the  case  of 
Abram  and  others.  It  is  only  necessary  to  read  the  epic  to  see 
how  frequently  the  axe  (or  spear)22  is  mentioned;  it  doubtless 
played  an  important  role  as  his  weapon.  In  consequence,  when  in 
later  times  the  legend  was  committed  to  writing  it  was  merely  nec- 
essary to  place  the  determinative  gis  before  Bilga.  Still  another, 
and  perhaps  more  simple  explanation  of  the  name  might  be,  that  it 
means  “Gish  is  an  offshoot  of  Mash.”  Unfortunately  the  signifi- 
cance of  Gish  which  figures  so  prominently  as  an  element  in  names, 
is  not  altogether  clear ; though  the  equivalent  idlu  ‘ ‘ hero,  ’ ’ offers 
a point  of  departure.23  Moreover,  these  are  only  tentative  expla- 
nations of  this  difficult  name,  which  are  offered  with  considerable 


reserve, 


...  The  earliest  Amorite  king,  who  by  his  inscription  informs  us 
that  he  had  conquered  Babylonia,  is  . . . -um-Shamash,  king  of 
Mari,  and  Pate.si-gal  of  Enlil,  which  means  that  he  was  suzerain 

21  See  .Jastrow  in  the  forthcoming  An  Old  Babylonian  Version  of  the 
Gilgamesh  Epic. 

22  Cf.  the  instruments  held  by  two  figures  supposedly  Gilgamesh  and 
Enkidu,  on  the  terra-cotta  relief  found  in  the  Yale  Babylonian  Collection, 
see  Art  and  Archaeology  V p.  73. 

23  On  the  element  Mash,  Mesh,  etc.,  see  also  Chapter  XVII. 


90 


THE  EMPIRE  OP  THE  AMORITES. 


over  the  land.  His  inscription  belongs  to  a very  early  period; 
see  further  Chapter  X. 

A number  of  the  rulers’  names  in  the  very  early  dynasties  are 
Amorite ; for  example,  I-su-il  of  the  Opis  dynasty,  El-muti  of  the 
Kish.  Doubtless  all  the  rulers  of  these  two  dynasties  were  Semites 
whose  ancestors  had  come  from  Amurru.  Eannatum,  patesi  of 
Lagash,  records  in  one  of  his  inscriptions  the  coalition  of  the 
Amorite  city  Mari  with  Kish  and  Opis  against  him,  which  he 
defeated ; see  further  Chapter  X.  Lugal-zaggisi,  the  son  of  Ukush, 
as  mentioned,  is  considered  by  some  to  be  a Semite.  The  tradition 
concerning  Sargon’s  origin  is  that  he  was  born  in  “Azupiranu 
which  lies  on  the  bank  of  the  Euphrates.”  The  great  conqueror 
of  Elam  and  Barahsu,  Uru-mush,  bears  an  Amorite  name. 
The  obelisk  of  Manishtusu  of  the  Kish-Akkad  dynasty  contains 
an  especially  large  number  of  Amorite  names.  They  are  com- 
pounded with  the  names  of  Adda,  Mir-Dadu,  Mir-Shar,  I-lu-Me-ir, 
Ba‘al,  Bar-ra,  perhaps  Malik,  etc.  Contracts  of  this  era  are 
known,  but  unfortunately  Sumerian  being  generally  the  language 
in  which  they  appear,  most  of  the  names  are  wwitten  with  Sumerian 
ideograms,  which  make  it  in  most  cases  impossible  to  determine 
whether  they  represent  Sumerian  or  Semitic  names.  Such  a docu- 
ment, however,  as  the  Obelisk,  which  is  written  in  Semitic,  gives 
reasons  for  believing  that  many  Amorites  lived  in  the  land. 
Recently  Scheil  published  a cylinder  seal  belonging  to  the  period 
of  the  first  kings  of  the  Kish-Akkad  dynasty,  which  bears  the  name 
of  Is-re-il,  son  of  Rish-Zuni,  and  which  he  equates  with  the  Hebrew 
name  Israel. 

More  than  a decade  ago  the  writer  advanced  the  idea  that  the 
rulers’  names  of  the  Nisin  dynasty  seemed  to  show  that  many  of 
them  were  Amorites  ( JAOS  1907,  p.  8).  The  name  of  the  founder, 
namely,  Isbi-Urra,  also  another  containing  the  same  deity,  namely, 
Urra-imitti,  as  well  as  others  compounded  with  the  names  Dagan 
and  Ishtar,  pointed  to  this  conclusion.  Recently  Barton  published 
an  oracle  which  shows  that  Ishbi-Urra,  the  founder  of  the  dynasty, 
came  from  Mari  on  the  Euphrates  (MB I 9:  4,  22),  thus  confirming 
the  view  that  the  rulers  were  West  Semitic.  As  mentioned  above 
(note  9),  the  Armenian  translation  of  Eusebius  calls  the  eight 


VIII.  AMORITES  IN  BABYLONIA. 


91 


rulers  of  this  period  Amorite  (Mar),  instead  of  the  usual 
“Median.”  A date  formula  of  a tablet  belonging  to  the  reign  of 
Libit-Ishtar  of  the  Nisin  dynasty  seems  to  point  to  an  interruption 
of  the  dynasty  of  Ishbi-Urra  by  another  Amorite  named  UR-In- 
urta.24 

The  Larsa  dynasty,  which  was  founded  about  the  same  time  as 
the  Nisin  dynasty  (see  MI  p.  41),  was  also  Amorite,  as  is  shown 
by  the  names  of  the  rulers.  The  Larsa  dynastic  tablet  recently 
discovered  in  the  ruins  of  that  city,  and  now  in  the  Yale  Babylonian 
Collection,  reads: 

21  years  N a-ap-la-nu-um 

28  years  E-mi-su 

35  years  Sa-mu-um 

9 years  Za-ba-a-a 

27  years  Gu-un-gu-nu-um 

11  years  A-bi-sa-ri-e 

29  years  Su-mu-ilu 

16  years  Nu-ur-dImmer 
1(1)  years  dSin-i-din-nam 
2 years  dSin-i-ri-ba-am 
6 ( ? ) years  dSin-i-qi-sa-am 
1 year  Sili-(li)-dImmer 

12  years  Warad-dSin 

61  years  dRi-im-dSin 

12(1)  years  dHa-am-mu-ra-bi 

12  years  Sa-am-stt-i-lu-na,  king- 
289  years. 

24  This  date  formula  (CT  4,  22)  has  been  the  subject  of  considerable 
discussion.  Ranke  read  it:  Mu  sa  Li-bi-it-Istar  A-mu-ru-um  it-ru-du-us 
“The  year  in  which  the  Amurru  drove  out  Libit-Ishtar”  (OLZ  1907,  109 
ff.).  Meissner  translated  it:  “The  year  in  which  the  city  Amurum  drove 
out  Libit-Ishtar”  (ibid.  109  ff.).  Unguad  translated  it,  “The  year  when 
Lipit-Ishtar,  the  Amorite,  was  banished.”  From  the  Ur-Nisin  dynastic 
list  it  is  clear  that  Libit-Ishtar ’s  successor  did  not  belong  to  the  ruling 
family.  King  suggests  the  date  means  that  the  Amorites  who  overthrew 
the  king  were  dislodged  by  UR-Inurta,  who  retook  the  city  and  established 
his  own  family  upon  the  throne  (SA  p.  315).  It  is  not  unreasonable  to 
maintain  that  IJR-Inurta  was  an  Amorite,  perhaps  from  another  quarter 
than  that  whence  Ishbi-Urra,  the  founder  of  the  dynasty,  came. 


92 


THE  EMPIRE  OP  THE  AMORITES. 


Thureau-Dangin  in  a recent  number  of  the  Revue  d’Assyriologie 
has  published  an  important  rectangular  prism,  now  in  the  Louvre, 
which,  if  perfect,  would  have  duplicated  almost  completely  the 
above,  giving  at  the  same  time  the  formulae  for  all  the  years  begin- 
ning with  Gungunu.  The  above  list  fortunately  gives  the  number 
of  years  which  are  broken  away  from  the  Louvre  prism,  and  it 
supplies  the  names  of  the  rulers  with  the  number  of  years  they 
reigned  from  Abi-sare  to  Warad-Sin.25  , 

Some  interesting  observations  are  possible  in  connection  with 
these  dynastic  lists  and  what  has  been  said  above.  We  had  no 
knowledge  of  the  first  four  reigns,  and  also  of  others  in  the  list  from 
any  source  prior  to  the  discovery  of  these  important  records, 
although  Naplanum  ruled  21  years,  Emisu  28,  Samum  35,  and 
Zabaia  9.  These  names,  as  well  as  others  that  follow,  are  Amorite. 
The  time  they  ruled,  namely,  almost  a century  in  length,  is,  there- 
fore, one  of  those  dark  periods  of  inactivity,  mentioned  above. 
Even  the  date  formulae  apparently  were  unknown  when  the  Louvre 
prism  was  inscribed,  for  they  begin  with  the  reign  of  Gungunu. 
This  king  is  mentioned  in  the  date  formulae  of  the  contracts  that 
have  thus  far  been  published ; and  he  is  also  the  first  of  the  dynasty 
who  is  mentioned  in  other  known  inscriptions.  Enannatum,  a son 
of  Ishme-Dagan  of  Nisin,  who  was  chief  priest  at  the  city  of  Ur, 
has  handed  down  inscribed  clay  cones,  in  which  he  records  the 
rebuilding  of  the  temple  of  the  sun-god  at  Larsa  for  the  preserva- 
tion of  his  own  life  and  that  of  Gungunu,  the  king  of  Ur  ( SA 
310  f.).  This  ruler,  in  a brick  inscription,  in  which  he  commem- 
orates the  building  of  a great  Avail  at  Larsa,  calls  himself  king  of 
Larsa  as  tvell  as  of  Sumer  and  Akkad.  The  cones  show  that  he 
also  ruled  Ur. 


25  The  Yale  tablet  contained  the  same  inscription  on  both  sides,  but  with 
the  exception  of  a few  characters  on  the  reverse,  which  happen  to  be  very 
important  in  restoring  the  figiu’es  on  the  obverse,  that  side  is  broken  away. 
Unfortunately  the  numbers  on  the  ob verse  also  have  suffered,  yet  it  can 
be  restored  nearly  completely  with  the  aid  of  what  remained  on  the 
reverse.  For  a full  discussion  of  the  Larsa  date  formulae  see  Thureau- 
Dangin  RA  XV  1 if.  and  Grice  Chronology  of  the  Larsa  Dynasty  ( YOB 
4,  part  1). 


VIII.  AMORITES  IN  BABYLONIA. 


93 


Since  the  first  four  rulers  of  this  dynasty  have  left  no  traces  of 
their  rule,  except  in  the  dynastic  tablet  and  prism,  perhaps  they 
sat  on  thrones  far  removed  from  Larsa,  somewhere  on  the 
Euphrates.  The  fact  that  their  reigns  were  not  of  short  duration 
shows  that  they  were  not  feeble  rulers. 

It  has  been  held  for  many  years  by  Hilpreclit  that  there  was 
active  hostility  against  Babylonia  on  the  part  of  Elam  at  this  time, 
when  UR-Inurta  (dNin-IB)  usurped  the  throne  of  Nisin.  But 
there  is  no  justification  for  supposing  an  Elamite  invasion  at  this 
time.  It  is,  however,  highly  probable  that  the  evidences  of  vandal- 
ism which  Haynes,  who  excavated  Nippur,  had  observed  beneath 
the  pavement  in  the  temple  of  UR-Inurta  were  caused  by  the 
Amorites,  either  when  the  dynasty  was  established  or  possibly 
when  a fresh  invasion  of  Amorites  displaced  those  who  had  pre- 
ceded them.  Gungunu  of  the  Larsa  Dynasty  was  an  Amorite,  as 
the  Amorite  Name  Syllabary  shows.  His  reign  synchronizes  with 
the  long  one  of  UR-Inurta.  It  is  not  impossible  that  both  were 
usurpers  and  represented  a fresh  influx  of  Amorites.  Decades 
later  the  Elamites  did  appear  on  the  scene,  when  Warad-Sin,  fol- 
lowed by  Rim-Sin,  sons  of  Kudur-Mabug,  displaced  the  Amorites 
at  Larsa,  and  brought  the  Nisin  dynasty  to  a close. 

The  dynasty  of  Babylon,  usually  known  as  the.  First  Dynasty, 
began  to  rule  shortly  after  the  close  of  Gungunu ’s  reign  (Ml  p.  41). 
The  kings  of  this  dynasty,  as  mentioned  above  (Chapter  II)  were 
also  Amorite. 

Not  only  is  the  nomenclature  of  this  period  full  of  Amorite 
names,  but  many  bearing  Semitic  Babylonian  names  were  devotees 
of  Amorite  deities,  as  is  shown  by  the  impressions  of  the  seals  on 
the  tablets.  This  would  imply  that  many  of  the  Amorite  names 
were  very  likely  Babylonized,  which  is  understandable,  as  in  many 
instances  it  only  involved  a very  slight  change.  This  would  indi- 
cate that  the  Amorites  were  much  more  numerous  than  the  nomen- 
clature shows.  But  what  is  especially  significant  is  the  large 
number  of  the  devotees  of  Amurru,  El-Uru,  Adad,  Nergal  and  other 
Amorite  gods,  as  indicated  by  the  seals,  not  only  from  one  site,  but 
from  all  whence  tablets  have  come,  Babylon,  Sippar,  Larsa,  etc. 
From  the  seal  impressions  on  recently  published  texts  coming  from 
Larsa,  it  would  almost  seem  as  if  the  chief  deity  of  the  people  was 


9± 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  THE  AMORITES. 


Urn  or  Amurru.  Even  Rim-Sin,  the  Elamite,  has  handed  down 
a votive  tablet  in  which  he  acknowledges  doing  obeisance  to  El-Uru 
the  god  of  the  Amorites,  in  dedicating  a votive  inscription  to  him 
(Yale  Babylonian  Collection,  No.  7232).  In  short,  the  land  was 
filled  with  Amorites. 

The  name  Ishki-Bal  and  others  in  the  Sea-land  dynasty  may  also 
prove  to  be  Amorite ; hut  thereafter  Amurru  does  not  seem  to  have 
figured  very  prominently  in  the  affairs  of  Babylonia,  except  as  a 
field  for  gathering  tribute.  Doubtless,  the  brief  Elamitic  suze- 
rainty of  the  West,  followed  by  that  of  Babylon,  was  responsible 
for  the  disorganization  which  ensued. 


IX 

EARLY  BABYLONIANS  IN  AMURRU 


The  records  of  Babylonian  and  Assyrian  kings  which  show  con- 
tact with  Amurru  are  naturally  important  for  the  reconstruction 
of  the  history  of  that  land.  These  show  us  that  already  in  the 
earliest  known  period  of  Babylonian  history  the  great  rulers  of 
that  land  were  preying  upon  the  Amorites.  As  is  evident  also 
from  what  has  preceded  and  what  follows,  the  people  of  Amurru, 
especially  from  the  middle  Mesopotamian  district,  also  had  their 
turn  in  such  undertakings. 

Etana,  the  twelfth  king  of  Kish,  as  referred  to  in  the  last  chap- 
ter, is  said  to  have  subdued  (ruled)  all  lands.  This  expression, 
which  is  found  in  a tablet  written  in  the  time  of  the  Nisin  dynasty, 
doubtless  meant  that  the  lands  of  the  West  were  included.  It 
seems  reasonable,  therefore,  to  look  upon  Etana  as  the  first  known 
ruler  who  came  into  contact  with  Amurru.  The  same  is  true  as 
regards  the  two  fragmentary  tablets,  dealing  with  events  in  the 
time  of  Shar-banda  and  Dumu-Zi,  which  refer  to  wars  against  Elam 
below,  Halma  above,  and  Tidnum  in  the  west.  Also  the  conflict 
of  Gilgamesh  and  his  companion  Enkidu  with  Humbaba  has  been 
noted.  Humbaba  is  perhaps  the  earliest  Amorite  known  by  name, 
except  the  legendary  antediluvian  rulers  handed  down  by  Berossus. 

Lugal-zaggisi,  king  of  Erech,  informs  us  that  he  conquered  the 
lands  “from  the  sea,  the  lower,  the  Tigris  and  Euphrates  to  the 
sea,  the  upper  (i.  e.,  the  Mediterranean).”  For  years  it  has  been 
known  from  late  omen  texts  that  Sargon,  after  several  campaigns, 
subdued  the  land  of  the  Amorites,  and  set  up  an  image  of  himself 
on  the  Syrian  coast.  In  an  inscription  recently  published  ( UMBS 
TV  1,  177  b),  which  gives  legends  from  monuments  seen  in  Nippur, 
the  god,  presumably  Enlil,  is  credited  with  having  given  unto  Sar- 
gon “the  upper  land  Mari,  Iarmuti,  and  Ibla  even  unto  the  Cedar 
Forest  and  the  Silver  mountains.”  The  city  or  kingdom  of  Mari 
was  on  the  Euphrates  (see  Chapter  X ) ; Iarmuti,  as  shown  by  the 
Amarna  letters,  was  a seaport  town  on  the  Phoenician  coast ; and 

(95) 


96 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  THE  AMORITES. 


Ibla,  mentioned  by  Naram-Sin  and  also  by  Gudea,  was  the  district 
further  north.  The  cedar  forests,  it  would  seem  from  the  descrip- 
tion, were  north  of  Ibla,  and  therefore  likely  refer  to  the  cedars  of 
the  Amanus  district,  which  Gudea  mentions  in  his  inscriptions. 
The  silver  mountains,  it  is  thought,  are  in  the  Taurus  range,  the 
same  referred  to  on  the  obelisk  of  Shalmaneser.1 

In  the  omens  of  Sargon  there  is  a passage  frequently  quoted 
which  reads:  “the  sea  of  the  West  he  crossed,”  which  has  been 
interpreted  as  meaning  the  Mediterranean.  But  a chronicle  more 
recently  published  by  King  proves  that  the  eastern  sea  is  meant. 
The  passage  reads:  “The  sea  in  the  East  he  crossed,  and  in  the 
eleventh  year  the  country  of  the  West  in  its  full  extent  his  hand 
subdued”  (Cliron.  II,  p.  4).  The  above  inscriptions  taken  from  his 
monuments  show  the  extent  of  the  West  land  which  he  conquered. 

A clay  tablet  recently  discovered  at  Amarna  (HS  XII,  193), 
the  translation  of  which  was  published  by  Sayce  ( PSBA  1915,  227 
ff.),  contains  a legend  of  Sargon ’s  successful  invasion  of  a distant 
country  separated  by  a barrier  of  trackless  forests  and  mountains. 
Sayce  holds  that  this  was  in  the  Hittite  region  in  eastern  Asia 
Minor.  The  tablet  he  thinks  belonged  to  a Hittite  resident  of 
Amarna  of  the  period  to  which  the  so-called  Amarna  tablets 
belong.  In  a date  of  Shargani-Sharri,  we  learn  that  ruler  con- 
quered Amurru.  It  reads : “In  the  year  in  which  Shargani-Sharri 
conquered  Amurru  in  Basar.  ”2 

Gudea  on  his  statue  as  an  architect  informs  us  of  his  extensive 
building  operations,  and  how  he  secured  his  materials  from  moun- 
tains in  Amurru,  Arabia,  and  the  country  north  of  Amurru.  From 
Mount  Amanus  he  brought  cedars,  and  urharinu  wood.  From 
Ursu  in  the  mountain  of  Ibla,  he  brought  zabalu,  and  asuliu  wood, 
and  plane  trees.  From  the  mountains  Umanu  in  Menua,  and 
Basalla  (perhaps  Mt.  Bazara  mentioned  by  Shargani-Sharri)  in 
Amurru,  he  brought  stones,  out  of  which  he  made  stelae.  From 

1 See  Poebel,  ibid.  224  f.  Olmsteacl  thinks  the  mines  at  Bulghar  Maden 
are  here  referred  to  ( AJSL  33,  311). 

2 Cf.  Thureau-Dangin  RTC  124.  This  place  has  been  identified  with  Mt. 
Bisura,  mentioned  in  Ashur-nasir-pal,  III  9 ff.  and  the  modern  Buzera  near 
Circesium.  If  this  is  correct,  it  would  indicate  that  in  this  period  this  part 
of  the  land  was  included  in  Amurru. 


IX.  EAKLY  BABYLONIANS  IN  AMUBBU. 


97 


the  mountain  Tidanu  in  Amurru,  he  brought  marble ; and  from 
Kagalad,  a mountain  of  Ki-Mash  (Damascus),  he  brought  copper. 
From  the  mountains  of  Meluhlia,  he  brought  usu  wood;  and  gold 
dust  from  the  mountains  of  Hahu.  From  a mountain  in  Gubin,  he 
secured  huluppu  wood ; from  Madga  asphalt,  and  from  the  moun- 
tain Barsliib,  nalua  stone.  From  the  lands  of  the  lower  country  by 
the  Persian  Gulf  to  the  upper  country  of  the  Mediterranean  Sea, 
as  well  as  other  places,  he  transported  materials  for  his  building 
operations  and  statues.  In  the  absence  of  any  military  records  of 
Gudea,  we  know  only  what  the  contributions  of  these  lands  were  in 
building  materials. 

Dnngi  in  his  year  dates  commemorates  the  devastation  of  differ- 
ent cities  in  the  west,  as  Humurti  (probably  Gomorrah),  Ki-Mash 
(Damascus),  etc.  Unfortunately,  many  of  the  cities  which  Dungi 
conquered  cannot  be  identified.  Together  with  the  other  rulers  of 
the  dynasty  who  followed,  namely,  Amar-Sin,  Gimil-Sin,  and  Ibi- 
Sin,  he  used  the  title  “king  of  the  four  quarters  of  the  world,” 
which  it  is  understood  included  Amurru.  On  the  seal  impression 
bearing  Ibi-Sin’s  name  found  on  a Cappadocian  tablet,  see  Chapter 
XIII. 

Elam  held  the  suzerainty  of  Amurru  for  a time.  Kudur-Mabug, 
the  father  of  Warad-Sin  and  Rim-Sin,  used  the  title  Ad-da  kurMar- 
tu,  “Suzerain  of  Amurru.”  That  Elam  held  sway  in  Palestine 
is  confirmed  by  the  tradition  handed  down  in  the  fourteenth  Chap- 
ter of  Genesis,  which  informs  us  that  in  the  days  of  Amraphel, 
Chedorlaomer  (Kudur-Lagamar),  king  of  Elam,  invaded  Palestine. 
It  would  seem  that  Elam  had  gained  ascendancy  in  this  region 
about  the  time  it  did  over  Larsa  in  Babylonia  when  following  a 
succession  of  short  reigns  the  sons  of  Kudur-Mabug,  Warad-Sin 
and  Rim- Sin,  were  placed  on  the  throne  of  Larsa. 

Hammurabi  in  conquering  Elam  in  his  thirty-first  year,  and  Mari 
in  his  thirty-fifth  year,  acquired  the  title  to  Amurru  (see  Chapter 
X).  In  a stele  found  at  Diarbekr  in  Southern  Armenia  ( L1R  I 
66)  he  calls  himself  “King  of  Amurru.”  Whether  at  this  time 
Amurru  included  this  part  of  the  Near  East  cannot  at  present  be 
determined. 

Hammurabi’s  son  and  successor,  Samsu-iluna,  in  the  date  for- 
mula for  his  thirty-sixth  year,  refers  to  the  great  mountains  of 


98 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  THE  AMORITES. 


Amurru  (CT  2,  27 : 18).  Only  one  other  ruler  of  the  same  dynasty, 
Ammi-ditana,  the  great-grandson  of  Hammurabi,  refers  to  the  land 
in  his  title  “king  da-ga-mu  of  the  land  Amurru”  (LIH  I 100:  6), 
which  term  is  not  understood.  In  the  Cassite  period,  which  fol- 
lowed, contact  with  Amurru  is  unknown,  except  the  bringing  hack 
from  Hani  of  the  images  of  Marduk  and  Sarpanitum. 

Contact  on  the  part  of  the  kings  of  Babylonia  with  Amurru 
seems  to  synchronize  with  highly  prosperous  reigns.  When  inva- 
sions or  conquests  of  Amurru,  Elam  and  Subartu  took  place,  it  was 
usually  at  a time  when  Babylonia  was  strong  and  vigorous.  These 
were  periods  when  art  flourished,  and  the  scribe  was  much  in  evi- 
dence. Monumental  records  or  victory  steles  seemed  to  be  the 
order.  When  all  the  lands,  or  the  lands  from  the  lower  sea  to  the 
upper,  were  conquered,  including  Elam,  the  ruler  used  the  title, 
“king  of  the  four  quarters  of  the  world.”  The  title  enjoyed  by 
kings  in  reigns  immediately  preceding  or  following  such,  is  fre- 
quently “king  of  Sumer  and  Akkad,”  which  embraced  simply  the 
northern  and  southern  part  of  Babylonia. 

Between  these  periods  which  offer  evidence  of  high  water  marks 
of  what  were  regarded  as  prosperous  times,  there  are  dark  periods 
when  the  civilization  was  apparently  at  a low  ebb.  Even  temple 
records  in  these  periods  do  not  seem  to  have  been  kept;  in  fact, 
evidences  that  there  were  scribes  in  some  of  these  eras  are  almost 
completely  wanting,  though  naturally  this  could  scarcely  have 
been  the  case.  Prior  to  the  time  of  Lugal-zaggisi,  and  the  period 
following  the  reign  of  Shargani-Sharri,  there  are  great  gaps  in  the 
history.  Following  the  overthrow  of  the  Ur  Dynasty,  when  Amo- 
rites  began  to  reign  in  different  centres,  there  was  apparently  a 
chaotic  state  of  affairs  for  nearly  a century,  as  the  almost  complete 
absence  of  records  shows.  In  the  first  half  of  the  Cassite  rule,  as 
far  as  is  known  at  present,  there  was  again  such  a lull.  The  same 
is  true  during  the  greater  portion  of  the  period  when  the  Assyrians 
were  dominant. 

As  a rule  the  monuments  of  Babylonia  throw  no  light  on  the  ques- 
tion as  to  what  was  the  cause  of  the  low  tide  of  civilization  in 
these  periods.  The  conqueror  did  not  record  what  led  to  the  over- 
throw of  the  native  dynasty.  He  was  not  in  a position  to  flaunt 
before  the  conquered  people  the  fact  that  he  had  subjugated  them. 


IX.  EARLY  BABYLONIANS  IN  AMURRU. 


99 


The  presence  of  foreigners  upon  the  thrones  must  explain  for  us 
what  happened.  The  kings  who  sat  on  the  thrones  being  Amorites, 
Elamites,  Gutians,  Cassites,  etc.,  we  can  only  infer  that  the  tables 
had  been  turned  for  the  time  being  upon  the  Babylonians.  We 
are  often  dependent,  for  what  we  know  of  them,  upon  the  effort  of 
the  later  scribe  who  handed  down  to  us  dynastic  lists ; but  many 
of  these  are  unfortunately  so  fragmentary,  especially  for  the  early 
periods,  that  we  are  still  in  the  dark  even  as  to  the  length  of  many 
of  these  eras  of  depression.  An  occasional  historical  reference  as 
to  what  occurred  may  be  found  in  later  periods,  as  for  example, 
we  are  informed  in  a chronicle  that  Agum-kakrime  brought 
back  to  Babylon  from  Iiani  the  cult-images  of  Marduk  and 
Sarpanitum,  and  installed  them  in  their  shrines ; or  Ashurbanipal, 
in  recording  his  defeat  of  Elam,  celebrates  his  return  of  the  statue 
of  Nana  to  her  shrine  in  Erech,  which  he  informs  us  was  carried 
off  to  Elam  by  Kudur-Nahundi,  1635  years  earlier,  but  additional 
knowledge  of  the  invasions  is  wanting. 

If  we  were  able  to  delve  among  the  records  of  the  powers  whose 
representatives  sat  upon  the  throne  of  Babylonia,  perhaps  we 
would  know  more  about  the  state  of  affairs  that  led  to  the  over- 
throw of  the  rule.  The  resurrection  of  Elam’s  royal  records,  those 
of  Amurru,  Guti,  Shubartu,  etc.,  will  enable  us  to  fill  up  some  of  the 
gaps  in  the  early  history  of  Babylonia.  They,  doubtless,  will  also 
show  how  these  countries  held  sway  over  Babylonia  at  times  of 
which  at  present  we  have  no  intimation  whatever.  A country  like 
Amurru,  which  was  overrun  and  plundered  many  times  throughout 
the  millenniums  of  its  history,  certainly,  especially  in  the  early 
period,  was  strong  enough  to  strike  back.  The  divination  texts 
would  alone  be  sufficient  to  show  that  the  fear  and  dread  of  this 
being  done  were  ever  before  the  peoples  of  Babylonia.  It  is  only 
necessary  to  examine  these  texts  to  ascertain  how  deeply  seated 
was  this  fear.  Since  the  Amorites  were  quiescent  after  2000  B.  C., 
we  must  conclude  that  the  divination  formulae  portending  trouble 
from  this  quarter  came  from  an  earlier  period.  Moreover  from  the 
evidence  we  already  possess,  there  can  be  no  question  but  that 
trouble  from  the  West  occurred  repeatedly;  and  it  is  certainly  rea- 
sonable to  infer  that  when  fuller  dynastic  records  have  been 
recovered  this  fact  will  become  more  and  more  evident. 


X 

UR  THE  CAPITAL  OF  AMURRU 

It  lias  been  customary  to  look  upon  the  political  life  of  Amurru, 
especially  of  the  early  period,  as  more  or  less  devoid  of  cohesion 
or  unity.  The  fact  is,  Amurru  is  generally  regarded  as  made  up  of 
petty  princedoms  of  semi-enliglitened  people,  or  tribes  of  a semi- 
barbarous  character.  This  conception  has  been  favorable  for  the 
development  of  the  pan-Babylonists  ’ theories,  and  for  the  view  that 
all  Semites  are  Arabs ; but  this  is  erroneous,  for  the  early  period 
as  well  as  the  late,  and  must  be  abandoned.  The  country  embraced 
such  peoples  who  had  a low  order  of  culture,  especially  in  certain 
regions,  as  for  example  Palestine,  which,  with  its  varied  geograph- 
ical character  and  being  more  or  less  isolated,  was  a home  of  neo- 
lithic man  as  well  as  a harbor  for  representatives  of  many  nations. 
Nevertheless  there  are  abundant  reasons  for  believing  that  even 
this  region  had  its  large  quota  of  civilized  people ; and  as  regards 
the  country  as  a whole,  it  will  be  shown  as  we  proceed  that  it 
enjoyed,  politically  and  otherwise,  a civilization  comparable  to  that 
of  its  neighbors. 

Whenever  light  is  thrown  upon  the  political  situation  in  the  post- 
Amorite  period  (i.  e.  after  2000  B.  C.)  by  contemporaneous  records, 
we  learn  of  kingdoms  of  a greater  or  less  extent.  The  inscriptions 
of  Thutmose  III  (1501-1447  B.  C.)  furnish  us  with  the  earliest 
knowledge  of  political  affairs  in  Amurru  in  this  post-Amorite 
period.  At  this  time,  the  king  of  Kadesh  is  either  the  head  of  an 
alliance  of  Amorites  which  included  Palestine,  or  he  is  suzerain 
over  this  region  (see  Chapter  XIV).  In  the  Amarna  period,  Abdi- 
Ashirta,  who  was  recognized  by  Egypt  as  an  overlord  of  the  Leba- 
non Amorites,  and  Aziru  his  son,  created  with  the  assistance  of  the 
Hittites  an  Amorite  kingdom  (see  Chapter  XII).  We  have  knowl- 
edge also  of  Og  and  Sihon,  kings  of  the  East  Jordan  Amorites. 
A few  centuries  later  the  Hebrews  under  Saul  aspired  to  found  a 
kingdom;  which  under  David  and  Solomon  embraced,  with  the 

(100) 


X.  UR  THE  CAPITAL  OF  AMURRU. 


101 


exception  of  Phoenicia  and  the  Lebanon  coastal  cities,  the  territory 
reaching  unto  the  upper  Euphrates.  There  was  also  an  Aramaean 
kingdom  with  Damascus  as  its  capital.  In  the  Assyrian  period 
we  know  of  great  alliances  or  coalitions.  In  the  Mesopotamian 
region,  other  kingdoms  are  known.  In  short,  whenever  the  veil  is 
lifted  and  we  obtain  a glimpse  of  political  affairs,  we  learn  of  the 
existence  of  kingdoms,  small  and  large,  or  of  aspirations  to  found 
such  kingdoms. 

The  greatest  political  ascendancy  in  Western  Amurru  that  is 
known  in  post-Amorite  times  was  that  of  Jerusalem  before  the 
kingdom  was  divided  and  fell  a prey  to  Assyria  and  later  to  Baby- 
lonia. Without  the  indigenous  record  that  we  have  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, we  should  know  absolutely  nothing  of  the  kingdom  of  David 
and  Solomon.  Egypt,  Assyria,  and  Babylonia,  at  the  time  when 
the  Jews  founded  their  kingdom,  were  comparatively  weak,1  and 
were  absorbed  with  their  own  problems  at  home,  which  permitted 
the  Hebrews  to  develop  their  kingdom.  There  were  many  such 
periods  in  the  history  of  Babylonia,  especially  in  the  earlier  millen- 
niums, when  powerful  kings  could  have  ruled  the  length  and 
breadth  of  Amurru;  and  of  whom  we  shall  learn  as  little  in  the 
annals  of  Babylonia,  even  when  all  have  been  brought  to  light,  as 
we  have  in  later  times  of  Solomon  and  David.  Early  Egypt  also 
had  its  periods  of  decline,  for  which  it  is  not  at  all  improbable  that 
some  mighty  Amorite  rulers  were  responsible.  In  short,  a great 
and  powerful  hegemony  in  Amurru  could  have  existed  in  the  very 
periods  on  which  contemporary  records  in  Egypt  and  Babylonia 
are  silent,  or  in  which  no  annals  were  produced ; and  it  is  only  by 
the  help  of  isolated  statements,  perhaps  of  a later  period,  or  by 
the  study  of  the  personal  names,  that  it  can  be  ascertained  that  the 
cause  of  the  decline  was  due  to  the  encroachments  of  some  power- 
ful neighbor.  It  would  be  reasonable  to  infer,  having  alone  the 
knowledge  of  these  kingdoms,  alliances,  and  coalitions,  that 

1 Breasted,  however,  thinks,  on  the  basis  of  1 Kgs.  9 : 16,  that  Solomon  was 
evidently  an 'Egyptian  vassal,  who  possibly  received  in  marriage  a daughter 
of  the  Pharaoh,  and  whose  territory  his  Egyptian  suzerain  extended  by  the 
gift  of  Gezer,  which  the  Canaanites  had  not  conquered,  but  which  he  cap- 
tured, burned  and  presented  to  Solomon.  HE  p.  529. 


102 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  THE  AMORITES. 


Amurru,  which  land  was  so  favorable  for  an  advanced  civilization, 
prior  to  the  time  that  it  succumbed  to  Elam  and  Babylon,  played 
an  important  role  among-  its  neighbors.  But  there  is  no  need  to 
rely  upon  inferences  for  this  view,  since  there  is  proof  that  it  is 
fact. 

The  land  Amurru  like  every  other  kingdom  had  a centre  from 
which  it  was  governed.  In  searching  for  this  imperial  city  it  seems 
that  certain  considerations  must  be  kept  in  mind.  In  the  first  place 
it  would  seem  reasonable  to  look  for  a city  that  bore  the  same  name 
as  the  kingdom,  having  in  mind  such  lands  as  Ashur,  Mash,  Akkad, 
Tilla,  Babylon,  etc.  It  would  appear  that  the  city  should  have 
existed  at  a very  early  era  to  account  for  the  name  Martu= Amurru 
being  used  for  the  land  in  the  early  periods.  The  city  doubtless 
occupied  a position  rather  centrally  located  to  have  maintained  its 
dominance  over  this  wide  area,  and  also  to  have  influenced  Baby- 
lonia so  extensively.  Such  a city  it  would  seem,  having  conquered 
all  the  surrounding  kingdoms,  and  occupied  such  a prominent 
position,  must  have  practically  passed  out  of  existence,  for  little  is 
known  about  it  in  the  late  centuries.  The  city  probably  was  the 
home  of  the  god  whose  name  was  written  Mar,  Mer,  Amar,  Uru, 
El-Ur  (Aloros),  etc.,  and  who  figured  so  prominently  in  the  early 
nomenclature  of  the  Babylonians.  With  the  loss  of  its  prestige  in 
the  latter  part  of  the  third  millennium  B.  C.,  Amorite  influence 
upon  Babylonia  practically  ceased;  the  city’s  religion  must  have 
waned,  for  subsequent  to  the  time  of  the  First  Dynasty  of  Babylon. 
Amorite  names  compounded  with  Mer,  Mar,  Amurru  or  Uru  are 
rare  in  comparison  to  earlier  periods ; in  fact  some  of  the  writings 
of  the  name  totally  disappear  in  personal  names,  although  they  are 
preserved  in  the  late  period  in  the  syllabaries. 

The  writer  has  shown  that  Amurru,  which  is  written  in  Aramaic 
Uru  plN),  is  identical  with  the  name  of  Abraham’s  home,  Ur 
of  the  Chaldees,  i.  e.  t/VpiN'i.2  Its  position  in  history,  like 
that  of  the  kingdom  of  Amurru,  was  practically  lost  sight  of.  So 
little  was  known  of  the  city  that  the  Jews  in  Babylon  in  Talmudic 

2 See  Amurru  167  ff.  Since  the  name  Amurru  or  Uru  was  regarded  the 
same  as  Ur,  the  writer  proposed  the  identification  of  a place  near  Sippar 
as  the  site  of  the  city ; this  view  is  now  abandoned. 


X.  UR  THE  CAPITAL  OF  AMURRU. 


103 


times  and  some  later  Arabian  writers  regarded  Warka  (or  Erech, 
Gen.  10:  10)  as  the  city.  It  now  seems  highly  probable  to  the 
writer  that  the  centre  sought  for  as  the  imperial  city,  or  Amurru, 
is  the  place  known  as  Ur  of  the  Chaldees. 

Recently  Olmstead  revived  an  identification  which  he  credits 
Henry  Rawlinson  as  having  made  from  a topographical  point  of 
view,  namely  that  of  the  city  Amurru  with  Marathus,  which 
appears  on  the  sea  coast  opposite  Arvad.3  Olmstead,  regarding 
this  the  capital,  sees  the  name  also  in  the  river  Marathias  of  Eusta- 
thias,  ad  Bionys.  914,  and  in  the  modern  ‘Amrit  (JAOS  38  249). 
In  the  Amarna  Letters  the  kingdom  formed  by  Abdi-Ashirta  in  this 
region  is  called  Amurru.  The  Boghaz-koi  archival  tablets,  as  well 
as  the  Egyptian  inscriptions  of  this  period,  also  use  the  old  name 
of  the  empire.  Probably  the  name  Marathias  and  ( Amrit  have 
come  down  from  this  period.  The  “city  of  Amor”  mentioned  by 
Ramses  III  (1198-1167)  may  be  this  city.  In  the  Assyrian  period 
Amurru  seems  to  have  been  confined  to  this  district ; and  it  is  per- 
fectly natural  to  look  for  the  old  capital  in  this  region;  in  fact, 
the  present  writer  has  heretofore  inclined  toward  this  view.  More 
recent  investigations,  however,  seem  to  point  elsewhere  as  the 
region  of  the  old  capital  which  gave  the  land  its  name,  and  espe- 
cially since  we  have  many  references  to  the  Mediterranean  cities  in 
the  early  inscriptions  of  Babylonia  and  Egypt  (see  Chapters  IX 
and  XIV),  but  not  the  slightest  evidence  of  the  city  in  question  in 
the  period  when  the  empire  existed,  namely,  in  the  third  and  fourth 
millenniums  B.  C.  Such  an  argument  is  always  precarious,  but 
nevertheless  until  evidence  is  found  it  appears  to  the  writer  that  it 
is  reasonable  to  look  elsewhere,  in  the  light  of  other  facts,  for  the 
ancient  and  important  city  which  was  powerful  enough  to  rule  the 
land  from  the  Mediterranean  to  Babylonia. 

The  earliest  kingdom  in  the  Mesopotamian  region  of  which  at 
present  we  have  knowledge  is  that  of  Mari  or  Meri,  along  the 
Euphrates.  The  city  played  an  important  role  in  the  early  history 
of  Babylonia,  and  very  probably  of  the  entire  North  Semitic  world. 

8 Rawlinson  says : “In  the  Khorsabad  Inscription,  for  Akarra  or  Acre  is 
often  substituted  Maratha  which  is  of  course  MdpaAg  of  Strabo  ‘ tto Ais 
dpyaia  Qoivlkwv’  Lib.  16,  518.”  ( JRAS  OS  12,  430  n.  1.) 


104: 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  THE  AMORITES. 


The  earliest  known  reference  to  the  city  is  on  a votive  statuette 
in  the  British  Museum  written  in  archaic  script,  which  reads  as 
follows:  “ ...  . -um-Shamash,  king  of  Mari,  great  patesi  of  Enlil, 
...  to  Shamasli  presented  as  a gift”  (CT  5,  2).  The  title  paiesi- 
gal  dEnlil  shows  that  this  early  king  of  Mari  was  suzerain  over  at 
least  part  of  Babylonia.  It  seems  to  the  writer  that  this  scarcely 
noticed  text  is  of  the  greatest  importance  in  that  it  is  the  earliest 
known  inscription  of  an  Amorite,  and  refers  unquestionably  to  one 
of  those  early  periods  when  Amurru  was  the  dominant  power  in 
Babylonia.  The  style  of  the  sculpture,  which  is  archaic,  points  to 
the  earliest  age,  probably  as  early  as  the  statue  found  by  Banks 
at  Bismaya  (King  SA  97).  The  character  of  the  writing  also 
points  to  a very  early  age.  The  writer  finds  no  reference  to  its  pro- 
venance, but  a photograph  of  the  statuette  has  been  published 
(ibid.  p.  102). 

Eannatum,  an  early  patesi  of  Lagash,  informs  us  that  in  his  day 
Mari  was  allied  with  Kish  and  Kesli  (Opis)  against  him  ( VB  I 22, 
VI:  22).  The  coalition  of  these  cities  with  Mari  is  interesting  in 
this  connection  because  they  are  Semitic  centres.  Eannatum 
claims  to  have  administered  a crushing  defeat  to  the  confederacy 
led  by  Zuzu  of  Kesli,  at  the  Antasurra  of  Ningirsu,  and  to  have 
pursued  them  to  their  own  city.  He  does  not  mention,  however, 
that  he  conquered  Mari. 

Sargon,  king  of  the  Kisli-Akkad  dynasty,  refers  to  the  capture 
of  Mari.  He  informs  us  that  some  deity  whose  name  is  missing, 
probably  Enlil,  “gave  unto  him  the  upper  land,  Mari,  Iarmuti  and 
Ibla  as  far  as  the  cedar  forest  and  the  silver  mountains”  ( UMBS 
IV  7, 179  f.).  In  an  oracle  of  Ishbi-Urra,  as  noted  in  Chapter  VIII, 
the  founder  of  the  Nisin  Dynasty,  that  king  is  twice  called  “the 
man  of  Mari.”  We  have  also  seen  that  not  only  the  Nisin  rulers 
bear  Amorite  names,  but  those  of  the  contemporaneous  dynasties, 
namely  Larsa  and  Babylon ; which,  considered  in  connection  with 
the  fact  that  the  nomenclature  at  this  time  is  filled  with  Amorite 
names,  show  great  influence  from  this  quarter  (see  Chapter  VIII). 

To  this  period  very  probably  belongs  a votive  tablet,  now  in  the 
Louvre,  which  had  been  inscribed  by  a king  whose  name  has  also 
unfortunately  been  injured.  It  reads  as  follows:  “Zi-i[m-.  . .] 
son  of  Ja-ah-.  . .,  king  of  Mari,  and  the  country  . . .,  who  built 


X.  UK  THE  CAPITAL  OF  AMUKKU. 


105 


T 


the  temple  of  . . . , who  from  . . . brought . . . , on  the  bank  of  the 
Eu[phrates],  the  bit  su-ri-b[i ] . . ,.in  Tirq[a],  the  beloved  of  the 
god  . . (See  Herzfeld  RA  11  134  if.).  The  script,  which  is 
that  of  the  Ur  Dynasty  or  earlier,  and  the  knowledge  we  possess 
of  Mari  and  the  collapse  of  its  political  position  (see  below),  make 
it  highly  probable  that  it  belongs  to  a period  not  later  than  the 
middle  of  the  third  millennium  B.  C.  Moreover,  we  learn  from 
the  inscription  the  fragmentary  name  of  a Mari  king,  Zim-.  . . 
and  that  of  his  father,  also  only  partially  preserved,  namely 
Jah-.  . .,  who,  it  is  reasonable  to  assume  was  also  a ruler.  This 
being  true,  we  know  the  fragmentary  names  of  three  kings  of 
Mari,  the  earliest  being  . . ,-um-Shamash.  Besides  these  Amo- 
rite  kings,  we  know  of  Humbaba  who  was  very  probably  a king  in 
the  Lebanon  district  in  the  time  of  Gilgamesli  (see  Chapter  VIII), 
and  an  early  patesi  of  Ki-Mash  (very  probably  Damascus),  named 
Iiunnini.  To  these  should  be  added  the  names  of  the  four  local 
Amorite  kings  mentioned  in  the  fourteenth  chapter  of  Genesis ; 
but  these  ruled  about  the  time  the  empire  was  dissolved,  or  even 
later.  They  were  local  city-rulers  of  Western  Amurru. 

In  the  latter  part  of  the  third  millennium  Elam  entered  the 
Western  arena,  and  with  the  help  of  its  vassals,  conquered  the 
Amorite  world.  The  fourteenth  chapter  of  Genesis  informs  us 
how  in  the  Hammurabi  (Amrapliel)  era,  Elam  had  invaded  the 
Amorite  territory  on  the  west  side  of  the  Jordan  and  the  Dead 
Sea.  It  is  not  improbable  that  this  is  the  time  the  hegemony  of 
Mari  was  finally  broken  up,  when  the  king  of  Elam  became  Adda 
Martu  “Suzerain  of  Amurru”  ( VB  210,  6:4).  It  is  not  unlikely 
that  the  fragmentary  date  for  Hammurabi’s  tenth  year  refers  to 
this  invasion,  for  in  it  the  population  of  Malgu  is  mentioned, 
probably  as  having  been  carried  away.  A few  years  after  Ham- 
murabi had  thrown  off  the  yoke  of  Elam  in  his  thirty-fifth  year, 
he  destroyed  Mari  and  Malgu.  The  date  reads : ‘ ‘ The  year  in 
which  Hammurabi  after  having  destroyed  the  walls  of  Mari  and 
Malgu,  at  the  command  of  Anu  and  Enlil,”  etc.  As  this  event 
followed  closely  upon  his  contest  for  supremacy  with  Elam,  it 
would  seem  that  probably  Mari  had  attempted  to  regain  its  former 
status.  Mari  and  Malgu  doubtless  required  more  than  ordinary 
efforts  on  the  part  of  Hammurabi,  because  of  which  their  over- 


106 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  THE  AMOR-ITES. 


throw  was  celebrated  in  the  date  formula.  In  his  Code  the  law- 
giver speaks  of  himself  as  the  one  who  subdued  the  settlements 
along  the  Euphrates,  “the  warrior  of  Dagan,  his  creator,  who  pro- 
tected the  people  of  Mari  and  Tutnl.  ” The  Code  probably  refers 
to  a time  subsequent  to  the  destruction  of  the  city’s  walls.  Mari 
thereafter  ceased  to  be  an  important  political  power  in  Western 
Asia. 

Only  two  references  in  the  Babylonian  inscriptions  to  Mari  sub- 
sequent to  the  ascendancy  of  Babylon  are  known  to  the  writer.  In 
a relief  of  the  later  period,  Shamash-resh-usur  calls  himself  gov- 
ernor of  Sulji  and  Mari  (Weissbach  Miscln.  9 f.) ; and  the  city 
is  mentioned  in  a document  as  being  in  proximity  to  Suhi  ( CT  4, 
2r:  20).  In  brief,  the  city  Mari  ceased  to  be  a factor  in  the  politi- 
cal affairs  of  Western  Asia  after  the  time  of  Hammurabi. 

Mari  must  be  recognized  as  the  city  Mar  of  the  early  inscrip- 
tions. The  goddess  whose  name  is  written  ideograpliically  Nin- 
Marki,  to  whom  Dungi  erected  or  restored  a temple  in  Girsu,  is 
the  ba‘  alat  of  Mar. 

From  this  centre,  namely  Mari  or  Mar,  there  went  forth  the 
gods  named  Shar-Urra  and  Mesh-Lam-Ta-e,  two  names  of  Ne-Uru- 
Gal  (=Nergal)  the  god  of  Cutha.  The  equation  Marki  = dNin-IB 
identifies  Urta  with  the  city. 

The  absolute  identification  of  Mar  with  Mar-tvi=Amurru=U ru 
and  the  other  forms  of  this  name,  see  the  previous  chapter,  gives 
us  every  reason  for  identifying  the  city  Mari  as  the  centre  we  are 
looking  for,  which  was  powerful  enough  to  weld  together  the 
Semitic  peoples  of  this  region  into  a great  nation  and  to  give  it 
the  name  Amurru ; this  it  retained  for  millenniums,  even  subse- 
quent to  the  time  the  hegemony  was  destroyed.  Yet,  it  was  in  all 
probability  the  home  of  the  Chaldean  antediluvian  mythological 
kings  at  the  head  of  which  stands  El- ’Ur  (Aloros),  and  who  was  fol- 
lowed by  five  other  kings  whose  names  also  contain  the  city-god’s 
name,  Alap-’Ur  (Alaparos),  Amel-’Ur  (Amillaros),  Megal-’Ur 
(Megaloros),  Ebed-’Ur,  the  brother  (Euedorachos),  and  perhaps 
’Ar-data  (Ardates)  (see  Chapter  IX).  This  also  was  the  ancestral 
home  of  Ishbi-Urra  and  Imitti-Urra  of  the  Nisin  Dynasty;  and 
moreover  it  is  highly  probable  that  it  was  the  home  of  Abraham. 

Taking  into  account  all  that  is  known  from  the  inscriptions,  and 


X.  UK  THE  CAPITAL  OF  AMURRU. 


107 


the  conditions  that  we  could  propose  in  the  identification  of  the 
imperial  centre,  no  city  in  Amurru  fulfills  the  conditions  as  does 
Mari  or  Merra  on  the  Euphrates.  Further  St.  Stephen  says  Ur 
of  the  Chaldees  was  in  Mesopotamia  (Acts  7 : 2,  4). 

In  this  connection  the  question  arises,  when  did  Merra  or  Ur 
establish  the  hegemony  which  gave  its  name  to  the  entire  land; 
and  when  was  it  dissolved?  Naturally  it  was  established  long 
before  the  time  of  Sargon,  but  whether  as  early  as  the  time  of 
Etana,  Shar-banda  or  Gilgamesh,  when  Humbaba  lived,  or  not, 
cannot  be  surmised.  It  is  reasonable  to  infer  perhaps  that  the 
empire  was  established  prior  to  the  time  when  . . . um-Shamash, 
king  of  Mari,  ruled  Babylonia.  Sargon  in  turn  humiliated  Mari. 
He  captured  the  city  and  invaded  the  region  beyond,  as  far  as  Ibla 
(see  above).  Following  the  Kish  and  Erech  Dynasties,  Guti 
ruled  Babylonia;  but  Guti  in  turn  was  overthrown  by  Erech. 
Another  dark  period  followed,  the  length  of  which  cannot  be  deter- 
mined at  present.4  The  status  of  Mari  in  the  West  during  the 
time  of  the  Ur  Dynasty,  which  followed,  is  not  known,  but  the  fact 
that  these  conquerors  made  no  mention  of  the  city  is  proof  that 
its  fortified  position  was  too  strong  for  them;  yet  they  carried 
on  their  practice  of  looting  and  gathering  tribute  from  the  king- 
doms beyond.  During  the  Ur  Dynasty,  Mari  certainly  did  not 
have  a dominant  position,  for  the  Ur  Dynasty  kings  assumed  the 
title  “king  of  the  four  regions,”  which  included  Amurru.  But 
the  time  came  when  not  only  Ur’s  control  of  Amurru  was  lost,  but 
Mari  actually  overthrew  the  dynasty  and  ruled  the  land,  for  “Ish- 
bi-Urra  a man  from  Mari”  was  placed  upon  the  Nisin  throne. 
Although  we  have  no  way  of  determining  the  origin  of  Naplanum 
who  took  the  throne  of  Larsa,  his  name  and  those  of  his  dynasty 
are  Amorite.  Moreover  it  is  to  be  noted  that  the  Larsa  and  Nisin 

4 The  writer  is  one  of  those  who  have  clung  to  a greater  antiquity  for 
Sargon  than  is  now  generally  accepted.  The  tablets  published  by  Scheil 
( Comptes  Rendus  1911  6061)  and  Poebel  (UMBS  V)  have  restored  some  of 
the  dynasties  between  Sargon  and  the  Ur  Dynasty,  and  he  feels  that  more 
will  become  known  as  investigations  proceed.  It  will  probably  not  be  pos- 
sible to  return  to  the  former  early  date,  but  the  present  indications  are  that 
a much  greater  antiquity  than  now  acceded,  will  have  to  be  granted. 


108 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  THE  AMORITES. 


Dynasties  were  established  at  or  near  the  same  time  (see  Chapter 
IX).  One  of  those  dark  periods  in  the  history  of  Sumer  and 
Akkad,  which  has  left  us  few  or  no  inscriptions,  follows ; although 
the  length  of  the  reigns  would  not  imply  disintegration  in  this 
instance,  but  perhaps  rather  foreign  control,  as  mentioned  above. 
Amorites  a little  later  established  a dynasty  at  Babylon;  and  as 
far  as  is  known  they  ruled  the  whole  land.  As  time  passed  the 
Amorite  rulers  became  Babylonized.  The  Amorite  dynasty  at 
Larsa  was  overthrown  by  the  Elamites,  to  whom  also  Babylon 
became  subject.  Elam  invaded  Amurru.  Subsequently  Hammu- 
rabi drove  the  Elamites  out  of  the  land,  and  a few  years  later 
conquered  Mari,  destroyed  its  walls,  and  also  those  of  other  strong- 
holds along  the  Euphrates ; when  the  imperial  history  of  Mari  or 
Amurru  was  closed. 

It  was  said  in  Amurru  (p.  103),  concerning  the  name  Uri  for  the 
country  Akkad,  or  northern  Babylonia,  that  it  is  not  improbable 
that  in  some  period,  when  the  peoples  of  Amurru  dominated 
Akkad,  the  name  of  the  broad  Amorite  land  Uri  ( —Amurru ) was 
.geographically  extended  to  include  it.  The  more  recent  investi- 
gations confirm  this  idea,  especially  since  we  know  that  the  Amo- 
rites conquered  Babylonia  several  times.  If  this  is  not  correct, 
we  can  only  assume  that  two  countries,  adjacent  to  each  other,  and 
inhabited  by  Semitic  peoples  who  were  closely  related,  had  the 
same  name,  which  in  both  instances  was  written  with  the  ideogram 
BUR-BUR,  and  yet  the  names  had  nothing  in  common.  Since  the 
Western  Semites  at  times  invaded  Babylonia,  and  sat  on  the 
thrones  of  the  land,  this  scarcely  seems  as  reasonable  as  the  view 
that  the  name  was  given  to  Akkad  in  some  early  period  when  the 
peoples  from  Uri  dominated  it. 

Recently  the  writer  proposed  the  identification  of  the  city  whose 
name  is  written  Ma-riki  and  Marki  with  Merra  “a  fortified  place, 
a walled  city,”  which  was  mentioned  in  his  Parthian  Stations  by 
Isidore  of  Charax  of  the  first  century  B.  C.  (see  Ml  4 f.)  Accord- 
ing to  Isidore  there  was  fifteen  schoeni  between  the  Aburas 
(Habur)  and  Merra,  and  twenty-two  between  Merra  and  Anatho.5 

3 From  the  Aburas,  Isidore  informs  us,  it  was  four  schoeni  to  Asich,  six 
to  Dura  Nieanoris,  five  to  Merra,  a fortified  place,  a walled  village,  five  to 


X.  UR  THE  CAPITAL  OP  AMURRU. 


109 


The  latter  city,  as  is  understood  (see  below),  was  by  ‘Ana  on  an 
island  in  the  Euphrates.  Merra  therefore  should  be  less  than  half 
the  distance  from  the  Habur  to  ‘Ana. 

The  ruins  of  Irzi  situated  on  a bluff  or  headland  of  a low  range 
of  rocky  hills  reaching  the  river  on  its  north  bank,  although  about 
midway  between  the  Habur  and  ‘Ana,  have  been  considered  by 
Peters,0  Schoff,7  and  others,  to  represent  Merra.  These  pictur- 
esque ruins,  which  can  he  seen  from  a great  distance,  have  been 
mentioned  by  all  travellers  who  have  noted  the  different  sites  on 
either  side  of  the  Euphrates.  Cernik,  in  his  Studien  Expedition 
1872-3,  gives  the  name  El  Baus  to  the  city.  Balbi  says  the  ruins 
in  1579  occupied  a city  larger  in  extent  than  Cairo,  and  appeared 
to  be  the  massive  walls  and  lofty  towers  of  a great  city.  This  led 
Rennell8  to  identify  Corsote  mentioned  by  Xenophon  (see  below) 
with  the  site  which  he  called  Erzi  or  Irsah.  Ainsworth  comment- 
ing on  Balbi ’s  description  thinks  he  mistook  “the  jagged  and 
broken  masses  of  gypsum  for  the  fragments  of  an  endless  city” 
(. Euphrates  Expedition  I 389).  Also  Miss  Gertrude  L.  Bell,  who 
examined  the  ruins,  says  she  did  not  find  bastioned  walls,  as  she 
expected,  but  a number  of  isolated  tower-tombs,  round  the  edge  of 
the  bluff  and  over  the  whole  extent  of  the  high  rocky  plateau.  She 
saw  no  traces  of  houses,  nor  means  of  obtaining  water ; she  thinks 
it  was  the  necropolis  of  a near-by  town,  and  dates  from  the  first 
or  second  century  of  the  Christian  era.9  Whether  beneath  the 
tombs  seen  by  Miss  Bell  belonging  to  recent  centuries,  ruins  of  an 
ancient  walled  city  will  he  found  if  excavations  are  conducted, 
remains  to  be  seen. 

Olmstead  seems  to  think  that  Isidore  located  Merra  on  the 
Euphrates  at  the  town  ‘Isharah  as  exactly  as  one  can  locate  a city 

Giddan,  seven  to  Belesi  Biblada,  six  to  an  island,  four  to  Anatho,  two  to 
Thilabus,  twelve  to  Izan,  and  sixteen  to  Aipolis  or  Hit. 

6 Nippur,  or  Explorations  and  Adventures  on  the  Euphrates  I 311  ff. 

7 Parthian  Stations  by  Isidore  of  Charax  p.  24. 

8 Illustrations  of  the  Retreat  of  the  Ten  Thousand  p.  103. 

9 Amurath  to  Amurath  83  if.  Since  Ainsworth  ibid.  p.  387  says  the 
cliffs  of  Irzi  were  also  called  A1  Wurdi  by  the  Arabs,  the  name  of  the  city 
further  up  the  stream,  it  may  be  possible  that  Irzi  was  the  necropolis  of 
that  city. 


110 


THE  EMPIRE  OP  THE  AMORITES. 


on  the  hour  basis  ( AJT  p.  284) ; but  ‘ Isharah  is  too  far  up  the 
stream.  A little  above  Irzi  on  the  Euphrates  is  the  site  of  an 
ancient  city  which  at  present  is  called  Werdi  (also  Wurdi).  This 
site  is  less  than  half  way  between  the  Habur  and  ‘Ana,  and  seems  to 
be  nearer  to  the  position  given  for  Merra,  by  Isidore,  than  Irzi ; it 
was  fifteen  hours  from  the  Habur  and  twenty-two  to  ‘Ana.  Werdi 
also  is  thought  to  be  the  Corsote  of  Xenophon,  who  referred  to  it  as 
a large  deserted  city,  which  was  entirely  surrounded  by  the  Masca, 
and  where  Cyrus  passed  three  days  on  his  march  against  Artax- 
erxes  his  brother  ( Anabasis  I 5,  9).  No  other  ancient  writer  is 
known  to  have  referred  to  the  city  named  Corsote.  Doubtless  in 
Xenophon ’s  time  the  ruins  of  the  ancient  city  were  still  in  evidence. 
Ainsworth,  however,  says  he  saw  no  remains  of  a city.  The  posi- 
tion of  the  city  naturally  makes  it  possible  to  understand  this ; the 
Masca  mentioned  by  Xenophon  is  understood  to  be  the  loop  canal 
which  encloses  the  bend  of  the  river  on  which  Werdi  stood.  This 
canal  is  now  called  Werdiyeh.10  Since  Mar  and  Mer  frequently 
interchange  with  We-ir,  it  is  reasonable  to  suggest  that  Werdi  per- 
haps is  from  Werti,  and  is  to  be  identified  with  Martu.  If  the 
site  actually  represents  the  ancient  city  Merra  or  Ur,  this  will 
appear  most  reasonable.  Moreover,  the  remark  previously  made 
several  times  again  seems  appropriate  here,  the  spade  of  the  exca- 
vator can  easily  determine  whether  Werdi  represents  the  city  in 
question. 


10  Bell  Amurath  to  Amurath  p.  82. 


XI 

OTHER  MESOPOTAMIAN  KINGDOMS 

The  kingdom  of  Hana  embraced  a district  of  the  middle  Euphra- 
tes, including  the  country  in  the  region  of  the  mouth  of  the  Habur 
above  Merra.  The  discovery  of  a few  inscriptions  in  this  district 
fortunately  throws  considerable  light  upon  the  character  of  the 
civilization.  One  of  the  chief  towns,  perhaps  at  one  time  the  capi- 
tal of  Hana,  was  Tirqa ; with  which  place  four  of  the  few  inscrip- 
tions can  be  definitely  identified.  The  site  of  the  city  is  supposed 
to  lie  near  Tell  ‘Isharah,  where  several  of  the  tablets  were  found, 
a town  situated  between  Ed-Der  (or  Der  Ez-Zor)  and  Salihiya. 
This  identification  seems  corroborated  by  the  discovery  also  at 
that  site  of  a votive  inscription  of  Shamshi-Adad,  in  which  he 
records  the  restoration  of  a temple  in  that  city  (see  below). 

The  earliest  reference  to  the  city  Tirqa  is  in  the  inscription  of 
Zi-i[m  . . . ] king  of  Mari,  referred  to  in  the  previous  chapter,  who 
restored  the  bit  su-ri-b[i ] in  that  city.  The  inscription  cannot  be 
definitely  dated,  but  the  script  and  other  considerations  point  to 
the  middle  of  the  third  millennium  B.  C.,  when  Mari  was  still  prob- 
ably the  imperial  city  of  Amurru. 

The  inscription  of  Shamshi-Adad  referred  to  above  reads : 
“Shamshi-Adad,  king  of  the  universe,  the  ruler  of  Enlil,  the  wor- 
shipper of  Dagan,  the  patesi  of  Ashur,  the  builder  of  Ekisigga, 
the  temple  of  his  assistance,  the  temple  of  Dagan  in  Tirqa”.1  In 
this  inscription  Shamshi-Adad  calls  himself  “the  priest-king  of 
the  god  Ashur,”  which  means  he  was  the  king  of  Assyria;  “ruler 
of  Enlil,”  which  implies  he  was  the  suzerain  over  Babylon;  and 
“the  worshipper  of  Dagan,”  by  which  he  regarded  himself  the 
patron  of  Tirqa’s  deity.  Doubtless  he  had  conquered  the  city  and 
district,  and  by  his  “pious  deeds”  attempted  to  placate  the  inhabi- 
tants. 

There  was  an  Assyrian  king  named  Shamshi-Adad  who  lived 


1 Condamin  ZA  21,  247  ff. 


(ill) 


112 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  THE  AMORITES. 


in  the  time  of  Hammurabi ; another  hearing  the  same  name  ruled 
about  1850  B.  C.,  and  others  about  1600  B.  C.  and  in  the  ninth 
century.  Shamshi-Adad  III,  who  ruled  about  1600  B.  C.,  used  the 
same  title  “king  of  the  universe”  (sar  kissati),  and  informs  us 
that  he  was  solicitous  for  the  land  between  the  Tigris  and  the 
Euphrates  ( KTA  2:  1 ft.).  It  would  seem  reasonable  to  regard 
him  as  the  one  who  rebuilt  the  temple  in  Tirqa  referred  to  in  the 
above  mentioned  inscription. 

Besides  this  votive  inscription,  three  contracts  have  been  dis- 
covered. The  first  is  a deed  of  gift  which  was  granted  by  Isharlim 
or  Isarlim  (which  name  iS  identified  by  some  with  ‘Israel’),  who 
was  king  of  Hana,  as  shown  by  the  impression  of  the  royal  seal 
on  the  tablet.  The  deed  conveys  a house  in  Al-eshshum,  a part  of 
the  city  Tirqa,  which  was  the  property  of  the  gods,  Shamash, 
Dagan,  and  Itur-Mer,  and  of  the  king.  These  names  occur  in  the 
oath  formula  ( LC  237).  The  date  reads  “In  the  year  when  Ishar- 
lim, the  king,  built  the  great  gate  of  the  palace  in  the  city  of  Kash- 
dah.” 

The  second  is  a deed  of  gift  of  several  plots  of  land  in  the  towns 
Ja’mu-Dagan  and  Tirqa,  to  his  servant  Pagirum,  by  Ammi-bail, 
the  son  of  Shunu’-rammu,  king  of  the  same  district  (VS  7,  204). 
The  oath  formula  includes  the  names  of  the  same  deities,  Shamash, 
Dagan  and  Itur-Mer,  and  that  of  the  king  Ammi-bail,  in  whose 
reign  the  document  is  dated;  i.  e.,  “in  the  year  when  Ammi-bail, 
the  king,  ascended  the  throne  in  his  father’s  house.” 

The  third  tablet  is  also  a deed  of  land,  in  Tirqa,  which  is  dated 

“in  the  year  when  Kaslitiliashu  established  righteousness”  (LC 
238).  The  oath  formula  is  similar  to  that  of  the  other  two  deeds. 
Whether  the  Cassite  king  bearing  this  name  is  the  one  who  lived 
in  the  eighteenth  century,  or  the  one  in  the  thirteenth,  or  even 
another,  it  is  impossible  to  say. 

Another  inscription  from  this  part  of  the  country  is  a marriage 

contract.  Its  exact  provenance  is  unknown,  but  it  certainly  came 
from  the  same  region.  It  is  dated  “in  the  year  when  Hannnu- 
rabih,  the  king,  opened  the  canal  Habur-ibal-Bugash  from  the  city 
Dur-Isharlim  to  the  city  Dur-Igitlim.  ” This  would  seem  to  show 
that  a canal  passed  from  Dur-Isharlim  on  the  Habur  to  Dur-Igit- 
lim.  Since  Dur-Isliarlim  apparently  was  a royal  palace,  Dur- 


XI.  OTHEB  MESOPOTAMIAN  KINGDOMS. 


113 


Igitlim  may  also  have  been  the  castle  of  Igitlim,  another  ruler  of 
Hana.  These  two  names  which  have  been  so  frequently  quoted, 
were  incorrectly  read  Zakku-Isharlim  and  Zakku-Igitlim  (Johns 
PS  BA  1907,  177  ft.).  The  original,  which  is  in  Mr.  J.  Pierpont 
Morgan’s  library,  clearly  reads  Dur-Isharlim  and  Dur-Igitlim. 

Johns  identified  the  king  with  the  Babylonian  law-giver;  but 
besides  the  date  of  the  tablet  not  being  a known  date  of  the  ruler, 
which  fact  he  recognized,  there  are  other  reasons  for  believing  the 
tablet  was  written  in  the  Cassite  period,  unless  it  is  assumed  that 
the  Cassites,  prior  to  Hammurabi’s  time,  had  already  influenced 
Mesopotamia  in  an  extensive  manner.  Besides  the  name  of  the 
canal,  which  is  compounded  with  that  of  the  Cassite  god  Bugash, 
one  of  the  four  personal  names  mentioned  in  the  tablet,  Kikkinu2 
shows  Mitannian  influence.  The  other  three  names  of  the  contract, 
fBi-it-ti-dDa-gan,  Pa-gi-rum,  and  A-ba-ia,  are  West-Semitic.  Fur- 
ther, the  seal  impression  on  the  tablet,  which  has  not  as  yet  been 
published,  is,  as  far  as  is  known  to  the  writer,  peculiar  to  the  Cas- 
site period.3 4  These  facts  point  either  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
Cassites  conquered  this  region  prior  to  Hammurabi’s  time,  and 
that  this  great  ruler  recognized  their  deity  in  naming  the  canal  he 
dug,  which  he  did  not  do  in  any  inscriptions  known  from  Baby- 
lonia, and  that  he  employed  different  date  formulae  outside  of 
Babylonia;  or  else  the  tablet  was  written  in  the  reign  of  another 
and  later  ruler. 

The  orthography  HammurabilA  has  no  bearing  on  the  question, 

2 With  the  name  Ki-ik-ki-nu  we  can  compare  Ki-ki-Tesup,  Ki-ik-Tesup 
( dIM ),  Ki-ik-ia,  Ki-ik-ku-li  and  Aii-ik-k i-ia- en-ni  (see  Clay  PN ). 

3 The  text  will  he  republished  in  Part  IV  of  Babylonian  Records  in  the 
Library  of  J.  Pierpont  Morgan. 

4 It  seems  unfortunate  that  there  should  be  so  much  confusion  introduced 
into  the  spelling  of  the  Babylonian  lawgiver’s  name,  for  besides  Hammu- 
rabi there  have  been  introduced  Hammurabili,  Hammurapi,  Hammurawi, 
and  Hammu-rawih.  In  changing  the  pronunciation,  scholars  have  been 
trying  to  accommodate  themselves  to  four  facts : the  Assyrian  translation 
of  the  name  kimta  rapastum,  offered  by  a late  scribe;  to  Amrapliel,  in 
Genesis ; the  form  Am-mu-ra-pi,  in  an  Assyrian  letter ; and  Ha-am-mu-ra- 
bi-ih  in  the  Hana  marriage  contract.  To  these  cases  should  be  added  the 
occurrence  of  the  name  written  d Am-mu-ra-pi  (YBC  4362),  Am-mu-ra-bi 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  THE  AMOBITES. 


114 

for  the  signs  ih  and  i’  were  used  interchangeably  both  in  the  Ham- 
murabi and  in  the  Cassite  period.5  There  is  a name  in  the  Amarna 
letters  El-ra-bi-ih  (also  written  I-li-ra-[bi-ih\  ) which  doubtless 
represents  the  same  element  rabi’  from  the  root  meaning  “to  be 
great.  ’ ’ 

Besides  these  four  legal  documents  and  the  votive  inscriptions 
of  Zim  . . .,  and  that  of  Shamslii-Adad,  which  throw  most  wel- 

(YBC  6270),  and  Ha-am-mu-um-ra-pi  (YBC  6496,  6508)  on  First  Dynasty 
records,  which  have  been  discovered  by  Dr.  Grice  of  the  Yale  Babylonian 
Seminary. 

That  this  foreign  name  should  be  written  occasionally  with  rapi  instead 
of  rabi,  and  especially  in  Assyria,  where  the  harder  pronunciation  of  the 
labial  is  frecpiently  found,  is  not  surprising.  There  is  some  justification 
for  the  reading  rapi  from  NiH  “to  heal,”  advanced  by  Prince,  cf.  Nabu- 
ra-pa-’  (BE  10:57);  but  the  element  can  scarcely  be  the  Arabic  rafi‘ , 
“high”  ( Tlmreau-Dangin  OLZ  1908  93),  nor  with  Hommel  from  the  Arabic 
roots  rabalia,  rabagha,  etc.  (OLZ  1907  235  f.).  Evidence  that  these  roots 
were  used  in  Arabic  or  Amorite  names  is  necessary  to  make  the  suggestions 
convincing;  and  further,  such  a meaning  as  “ Amm  is  wide”  or  “the  family 
is  broad”  is  without  parallel  for  personal  names.  The  assumption  of 
Luckenbill,  who  makes  the  root  ITH  “to  be  airy,  roomy,  wide,”  is  still 
less  convincing  (JAOS  37,  252).  Chiera’s  Amorite  list,  as  well  as  the  Yale 
Gilgamesh  tablet,  show  that  the  signs  pi,  bi,  mi,  and  bu,  mu,  etc.,  represent 
similar  Amorite  sounds,  but  the  statement  that  in  Old  Babylonian  the  word 
for  “son”  is  not  aplu  but  maru,  and  that  names  read  abil,  “son,”  must 
be  changed  to  aivil,  “man”  (UMBS  XI  1,  37  f.),  which  Luckenbill  accepts 
(JAOS  37,  252),  is  difficult  to  understand.  Cf.  ab-lim  31:54,  Ab-lu-tim 
28:19,  etc.,  of  the  Code;  a-bil  17:1,  a-bi-il  210:10,  etc.,  VAB  5,  and  cf. 
A-bil(TUR)-Samas,  etc.  (Banke  PA).  Moreover,  evidence  of  the  use  of 
this  root  m"l  in  personal  names  is  wanting ; and  besides  the  element  would 
appear  rah,  instead  of  rawi  or  rawiii. 

While  rawi,  rawiii,  or  rafi  are  not  found  in  Amorite  names,  rabi  from  the 
root  “to  be  great,”  is  very  common.  This  element  is  even  found  in  the 
Amorite  names  of  Cappadocia.  It  seems  comparatively  easy  to  understand 
how  the  Assyrian  scribe,  mistaking  the  element  Amm  of  an  earlier  age  for 
the  word  meaning  “family,”  translated  rabi  with  rapastum.  In  short, 
this  royal  scribe  of  Ashurbanipal’s  library  was  sufficiently  educated  to 
know  at  least  the  pronunciation  of  the  name,  which  he  wrote  ra-bi ; and  bi 
in  the  Assyrian  period  cannot  be  read  wi  or  pi.  The  same  is  true  of  the 


XI.  OTHER  MESOPOTAMIAN  KINGDOMS. 


115 


come  light  upon  the  civilization  of  the  Hana  district,  especially  in 
the  early  part  of  the  second  millennium  B.  C.,  there  should  be  men- 
tioned also  another  document  of  the  early  period  which  has  been 
published  by  Pinches  (CT  4,  1),  concerning  a certain  Sin-iqisham, 
the  sdbir  of  Suhi,  who  dwelt  in  Halis  of  Suhi.  It  would  appear 
from  this  document  that  Suhi  bordered  on  Mari.  Shamash-resh- 
usur  of  a later  period  (see  below),  was  shaknu  of  Suhi  and  Mari. 
Suhi  has  been  placed  above  Mari  near  the  mouth  of  the  Habur 
(HB  p.  260,  n),  and  it  has  been  localized  below,  near  ‘Ana,  although 
it  is  recognized  as  a very  indefinite  place  (Olmstead  JAOS  38  p. 
241).  If  Anat,  Hanat,  and  Anatho  are  different  forms  of  the  same 
city’s  name  (see  below),  it  would  seem  that  Suhi  must  have  been 
below  Mari. 

These  documents  show  that  the  Babylonian  language,  with  the 
usual  Sumerian  formulae,  was  used  for  the  legal  documents;  yet 
the  terminology  was  peculiar  to  the  district.  Doubtless,  back  of 
the  documents  is  a different  code  of  laws.  For  example,  in  the 
case  of  any  infraction  of  the  rights  bestowed  by  the  king,  there  was 
to  be  a fine  of  ten  manehs  of  silver,  and  in  addition  the  guilty  party 
was  to  have  his  head  tarred  with  hot  tar. 

The  nomenclature  of  these  few  contracts  found  in  Hana  is  espe- 
cially rich  in  important  characteristics  of  the  Amorite  civilization. 
They  contain  an  unusually  large  number  of  Amorite  names. 
Among  them  are  many  West  Semitic  verbal  forms,  like  Ja-as-ma-’- 
dBa-gan,  Ja-ri-ib-dAdad,  etc.  Of  special  importance  is  the  fre- 
quent occurrence  of  the  god  Dagan  in  the  names,  about  a dozen  of 
which  are  compounded  with  that  of  the  deity ; and  besides,  several 

royal  scribe  who  made  a copy  of  the  Code  of  Hammurabi  for  the  library 
(CT  13:47).  And  surely  the  chronicler  of  early  kings  was  sufficiently 
intelligent  to  know  this  name.  The  same  is  true  of  the  royal  scribe  of 
Nabonidus,  King  of  Babylon,  when  he  referred  to  Hammurabi  as  living 
700  years  prior  to  Burna-Buriash.  Even  though  the  foreign  name  of  this 
ruler  was  in  a few  instances  written  differently,  these  facts  should  be  suffi- 
cient to  prompt  us  to  hold  to  the  pronunciation  these  scribes  deemed  correct, 
namely,  Hammurabi. 

5 Cf.  Kanke  BE  VI  1,  Sign  No.  198.  Cf.  also  Ba-ah-lu-ti  with  Ba-’-lu-ti, 
Ki-sa-ah-bu-ut  with  Ki-sa-’-bu-ut,  etc.  (Clay  PN ) ; and  ma-ah-du-ti  191:  8 
with  ma-’-du-ii  3 : 10,  etc.,  Amarna  letters. 


116 


THE  EMPIRE  OE  THE  AMORITES. 


individuals  bear  the  title  “priest  of  Dagan.”  On  the  seal  of 
Isharlim,  king  of  Hana,  he  calls  himself  “the  beloved  of  Shamash 
and  Dagan.”  In  these  few  tablets  several  names  contain  that  of 
‘Aurora,  as  Jakun-Ammu,  Bina-Ammi,  Ammi-bail  the  king,  Jasdi- 
Harnmu,  Zimri-Hammu,  and  perhaps  Abilama  his  son.  Two  wit- 
nesses, Guri  and  Igitlim,  and  a man  named  Zirari-Hanata  are 
designated  as  akil  of  the  god  Amnrru,  which  title  was  so  commonly 
used  by  the  Amorites  in  Babylonia  in  the  time  of  the  First  Dynasty. 

In  this  connection  should  be  mentioned  again  the  bringing  back 
of  the  images  of  Marduk  and  Sarpanitum  from  Hani  by  the  Cas- 
site  king  Agum-kakrime,  and  their  reinstallation  in  Esagila  at 
Babylon.  It  has  been  suggested  that  they  had  been  carried  off 
during  the  Hittite  invasion  in  the  time  of  Samsu-ditana  ( HB  p. 
210) ; but  if  Ilani  and  the  kingdom  Hana  are  to  be  regarded  as 
identical,  it  would  seem  that  they  had  been  removed  during  one  of 
the  early  Amorite  invasions,  for  the  Hittites,  if  they  had  car- 
ried them  away,  would  scarcely  have  left  them  in  this  region. 

In  1885  Pinches  published  an  inscription  found  by  Bassarn  at 
Sippar,  which  also  refers  to  Hana.  The  inscribed  object  is  an 
oblong  instrument  partially  of  green  stone,  fixed  into  an  orna- 
mental bronze  socket  which  is  in  the  shape  of  a ram’s  head,  the 
eyes  of  which  are  inlaid  with  some  white  composition.  On  one  of 
the  broad  surfaces  is  inscribed:  “To  Shamash,  king  of  heaven 
and  earth,  Tukulti(-ti)-Me-ir,  king  of  the  country  Hana,  son  of 
Hu-shaba,  king  of  Hana,  for  [the  safety  of]  his  land  and  his  own 
protection  he  has  presented  it.”  The  text  is  printed  with  Assy- 
rian type,  but  when  Pinches  published  the  inscription  in  1883  he 
considered  that  the  script  pointed  to  the  time  of  the  king  then 
called  Shalmaneser  II.  He  mentions,  however,  that  it  contains  a 
few  archaic  forms  ( TSBA  8,  351  ff.). 

About  fifty  miles  below  the  city  Merra  on  the  Euphrates  is  situ- 
ated the  present  city  ‘Ana.  It  is  regarded  as  being  indescribably 
picturesque,  and  perhaps  the  most  delightful  city  on  the  Euphrates. 

‘Ana  has  long  been  identified  with  the  ancient  ‘Anatho.  Xeno- 
phon called  the  city  Charmande.  Isidore  of  Charax  mentioned 
Anatho  as  being  on  “an  island  in  the  Euphrates  of  four  stadia.” 
The  emperor  Julian,  of  the  fourth  century,  mentioned  Anatha  as 
being  a city  of  importance,  situated  both  on  the  islands  of  the  river 


XI.  OTHEK  MESOPOTAMIAN  KINGDOMS. 


117 


and  on  the  shore.  Yakut,  about  1225,  refers  to  ‘ Anath  as  a strong 
fortress  on  an  island. 

The  city  ‘Anatho6  is  doubtless  to  be  identified  with  the  city 
Hanatki  mentioned  in  the  tablet  published  by  Pinches  ( CT  4,  1,  see 
above),  and  Anat  of  Sulii,  referred  to  by  Ashur-nasir-pal  as  a city 
on  an  island  in  the  Euphrates  (I  R 23:  15). 

Whether  there  were  twin  cities,  called  ‘Ana,  perhaps  on  the 
bank  of  the  river,  and  ‘Anatu  on  the  chief  island,  now  called  Lub- 
bad,  to  account  for  the  different  names  handed  down,  remains  to 
be  seen.  Yakut  in  regarding  ‘Anat  a poetical  form  of  the  plural 
of  ‘Ana,  is  apparently  mistaken. 

Unquestionably  these  names  have  been  correctly  associated  with 
the  god  and  goddess  Anu  and  Antu  by  Peters  {Nippur  I 144  ff.), 
and  it  is  highly  probable  that  this  was  the  chief  centre  of  their 
worship  whence  it  was  carried  into  the  region  lying  east  and  west, 
even  to  Egypt.  This  being  true,  ‘Anu  and  ‘Antu  were  Amorite 
gods,  as  the  writer  has  heretofore  assumed  {Amurru  142  f. ; 
see  further  Chapter  XVII).  If  Hanat  and  Anat  are  the  same,  it 
seems  reasonable  also  that  the  name  Hana,  written  in  cuneiform 
Ha-na,  the  name  of  the  district,  should  be  identified  with  the  name 
of  the  god  written  Ana,  Anu,  Anna,  Ani,  and  especially  since  the 
Semitic  ayin  which  the  name  contains,  as  is  shown  by  the  West 
Semitic  forms,  is  very  frequently  reproduced  by  h in  cuneiform; 
cf.  liavimu,  bcililu,  yadali,  etc.,  all  reproducing  the  ayin,  and  espe- 
cially in  Amorite  names. 

The  deity  Hana  is  very  probably  the  same  as  Hanu,  Hani,  and 
Han,  which  occur  in  Amorite  names  of  the  Harran  Census  and 
other  Assyrian  and  Babylonian  texts.  This  deity  presided  over 
an  advanced  civilization  in  the  West,  as  is  determined  by  the  dis- 
covery of  the  ancient  Sumerian  prototype  of  the  Hammurabi  Code, 
a single  tablet  of  which  has  been  preserved  and  is  now  in  the  Yale 
Babylonian  Collection.  The  colophon  of  the  tablet  reads  “the 

6 On  ‘Ana  and  ‘Anatho,  see  Cernik  Studien  Expedition  1872-73;  Ains- 
worth The  Euphrates  Expedition  I 401  ff. ; Peters  Nippur  or  Explorations 
on  the  Euphrates  I 144  ff. ; and  Schoff  Parthian  Stations  of  Isidore  of 
Charax  pp.  5 and  24;  Seheil  Annates  de  Tukulti  Ninip  II  p.  42;  Bell 
Amurath  to  Amuratli  p.  97 ; and  Olmstead  JAOS  38  p.  241. 


118 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  THE  AMORITES. 


law  of  Nisaba  and  Hani”  (Ml  p.  19  f.).  The  goddess  Nisaba, 
“the  patroness  of  writing”  ( RA  8,  110),  who  wielded  the  stylus 
and  gave  understanding  to  Gudea,  together  with  Hani  who  was 
“the  god  of  the  scribes”  and  “lord  of  the  seal,”  are  thus  credited 
with  being  the  givers  of  the  laws.  Perhaps  Nisaba  (or  Nidaba), 
the  consort  of  Hani,  will  prove  to  have  been  also  a Western  deity, 
but  whose  name,  like  Marduk  and  Nergal  having  been  written  with 
a cuneiform  ideogram,  in  its  transmission  suffered  a change  in  the 
pronunciation.  It  may  prove  to  be  the  Sumerian  name  of  Antu. 
Prom  these  considerations  it  appears  as  if  the  laws  which  have 
been  credited  to  the  Sumerians  because  written  in  their  language 
very  probably  had  their  origin  among  the  Amorites.  And  since 
the  country  was  tilled  with  these  Western  Semites  during  the  Ham- 
murabi period,  and  that  dynasty  was  Amorite,  it  is  not  improbable 
that  the  Hammurabi  Code  drew  extensively  from  Amorite  sources. 
This  may  account  for  the  fact  that  actions  of  Abraham  are  in 
accordance  with  the  Code,  e.  g.,  his  treatment  of  Hagar,  his  adop- 
tion of  his  slave  and  steward  Eliezer,  etc. 

If  the  name  of  the  city  ‘Ana  and  Hana  are  identical,  the  ques- 
tion arises  was  this  the  centre  of  the  hegemony  known  as  Hana 
which  embraced  the  region  of  the  Euphrates  including  the  mouth 
of  the  Habur.  It  is  probable  that  the  kingdom  Hana  was  ruled  by 
a city  and  deity  Hana.  But  is  ‘Ana,  with  its  twin  city  Anatho  on 
an  island,  whose  name  is  written  Anat  and  Manat,  the  city  in  ques- 
tion? If  this  should  prove  correct,  it  must  be  conceded  that  not 
a few  difficulties  remain  to  be  explained.  As  above,  Sulii  in  the 
time  of  Asliur-nasir-pal  embraced  the  region  in  which  Anat,  the 
supposed  Anatho,  was  located;  Shamash-resh-usur  was  governor 
of  Sulii  and  Mari;  and  as  mentioned,  in  the  tablet  published  by 
Pinches  (CT  4:1),  which  belongs  to  the  early  period,  Sulii  borders 
on  Mari.  In  other  words  it  would  seem  as  if  ‘Ana  or  ‘Anat 
belonged  in  these  periods  to  Suhi.  Naturally  the  second  millen- 
nium intervened,  to  which  period  the  Hana  contracts  belong. 
Then  also  if  the  city  ‘Ana  was  the  capital  of  the  kingdom,  the 
question  arises  did  Isharlim,  king  of  Hana,  and  perhaps  also 
Ammi-bail,  live  in  ‘Ana  or  near  Tirqa.  The  date  of  the  marriage 
contract  above  referred  to,  as  well  as  the  land  deeds,  would  seem 
to  indicate  that  these  kings  were  intimately  identified  with  the 


XI.  OTHER  MESOPOTAMIAN  KINGDOMS. 


119 


region  in  which  Tirqa  was  situated.  These  questions  cannot  be 
answered  until  we  have  additional  light  on  the  subject. 

Shamash-resh-usur,  who  calls  himself  governor  of  Suhi  and  Mari, 
mentions  the  restoration  of  a canal  of  Sulii  and  the  building  of  a 
city  named  Gabbari-ibni.  Tiglath-pileser  I says  in  one  day  he 
raided  the  country  from  Suhi  to  Carchemish  ( Annals  Y:  44  ff.). 
Several  other  important  cities  were  located  in  this  region.  The 
date  for  the  fourth  year  of  Hammurabi  referred  to  above,  records 
the  destruction  of  Malga  as  well  as  Mari.  Tutul  is  another  city  in 
this  district,  which  may  prove  to  be  Thilutha  of  Ammianus  Mar- 
cellinus,  now  called  Telbeis  a little  below  ‘Ana,7  where  Julian 
informs  us  there  was  an  impregnable  fortress. 

The  kingdom  of  Harran  lay  north  of  Hana,  in  the  region  which 
was  called  Aram  or  Aram  Naharaim.  There  is  an  Arabic  saying 
to  the  effect  that  the  first  two  cities  rebuilt  after  the  deluge  were 
Damascus  and  Harran,  implying  that  these  cities  were  looked 
upon  as  very  ancient.  The  name  Harran,  which  means  “road,” 
was  doubtless  so  called  because  it  was  situated  on  the  great  trade 
route.  In  short,  it  would  seem  that  Harran  was  one  of  the  most 
important  cities  in  Mesopotamia  in  ancient  times. 

Unfortunately,  references  to  the  city  in  early  literature  are 
singularly  wanting.  The  earliest  reference  to  the  district  and  city 
are  found  in  the  Biblical  traditions  concerning  the  home  of  Abram. 
Even  the  Amarna  letters  and  the  Egyptian  inscriptions  throw 
little  light  on  the  region,  unquestionably  due  to  the  fact  that 
Mitanni  then  had  possession  of  the  land.  The  Assyrian  kings 
claimed  to  have  controlled  the  region  from  the  time  of  Adad- 
nirari  I of  the  fourteenth  century.  From  this  time  it  was  incorpo- 
rated in  the  Assyrian  kingdom. 

Valuable  information  concerning  the  district,  however,  is 
obtained  from  an  Assyrian  census  taken  in  the  seventh  century.8 
Though  this  period  is  far  removed  from  the  one  under  discussion, 
nevertheless  it  is  highly  probable  that  much  of  the  knowledge  con- 
cerning the  culture  can  be  applied  also  to  the  early  period. 

In  this  census  of  the  district  about  Harran,  such  details  of  each 

j 

7 Identified  by  Sclieil  Tukulti  Ninip  II  p.  49. 

8 Johns  ADB. 


THE  EMPIRE  OE  THE  AMORITES. 


120 

form  of  arable  land  as  vineyards,  orchards,  gardens,  etc.,  are 
recorded.  The  names  of  the  pater  familias  and  his  sons  are  given ; 
the  women  are  merely  enumerated,  as  are  also  the  live  stock.  The 
kingdom  was  divided  up  into  units,  called  qani.  Certain  cities, 
as  Harran,  Dur-Nabu,  etc.,  were  the  centres  of  these  qani.  The 
Harran  qani,  for  example,  included  the  towns  ’Atnu,  Badani, 
Ianata,  Saidi  and  Han-suri,  and  the  villages  Arrizu  and  Kaparu. 

The  large  list  of  cities,  towns,  and  villages  that  are  named  in  the 
different  qani  of  the  kingdom  will  prove  of  the  greatest  impor- 
tance when  this  region  is  explored,  and  excavations  are  conducted. 
Attempts  at  identifying  some  have  been  made,  as  for  example 
Sarugi,  which  name  is  compared  with  Serug  an  ancestor  of  Abram, 
is  thought  to  be  represented  by  the  present  town  Serudj.  Baliki 
is  thought  to  be  on  the  river  bearing  that  name,  south  of  Harran; 
Til-Nahiri  is  associated  with  Nalior,  another  ancestor  of  Abram.9 

The  personal  names  found  in  these  tablets  are  of  great  impor- 
tance in  throwing  light  upon  the  cults  of  the  district,  for  they 
inform  us  what  gods  were  worshipped.  The  list  of  gods  embraces 
Adad,  Ata,  Atar,  Aja,  Alla,  Ashirta,  Hani,  Nabu,  Nashhu,  Shamshi, 
Ser,  Si’  or  Sin,  Ter,  etc.  The  elements  with  which  these  names 
are  constituted  are  in  many  instances  Aramaic.  Besides  the  use 
of  the  generic  term  for  god,  namely  ilu,  the  deities  occurring  most 
frequently  are  Si’  and  Naslilm  or  Nashuh.  Harran  was  known  to 
be  the  great  centre  of  the  worship  of  the  moon-god  Sin;  and  we 
here  learn  that  the  city  was  perhaps  also  the  original  habitat  of 
Nashhu,  who  became  Nushu  in  Babylonia  (see  Chapter  XVII). 
Doubtless,  as  investigations  continue  other  important  states  in  this 
Mesopotamian  region  will  become  known. 


See  Johns  ibid.,  and  also  Kraeling  Aram  and  Israel  25  f. 


XII 

THE  MEDITERRANEAN  KINGDOMS 


The  various  kingdoms  or  lands  in  the  western  part  of  Amurru 
bore  different  names  in  different  periods ; also  some  of  the  names 
used  among  one  people  differed  from  those  used  at  the  same  time 
by  another.  In  the  early  Egyptian  inscriptions,  the  Lebanon  dis- 
trict was  called  Retenu,  while  in  the  early  Babylonian  inscriptions 
it  was  called  Tidanu  or  Tidnu.  In  the  time  of  Gudea,  Tidnu, 
together  with  Basalla,  were  designations  of  a mountainous  district 
of  this  country.  In  the  early  Egyptian  inscriptions,  Phoenicia 
was  called  Zalii.  In  the  Amarna  letters  this  region  including  the 
Lebanon  district  was  called  Amurru,  as  well  as  in  the  late  Egyp- 
tian inscriptions ; which  name,  as  noted  already,  was  used  in 
Babylonia  for  the  entire  land  west  of  that  country. 

The  name  Tidnu  was  written  with  the  cuneiform  ideogram  G1R- 
GIR.  This  ideogram  also  represented  the  name  Amurru.  GIR-ra 
also  stood  for  Amurru.1  In  the  Amarna  letters  one  of  the  dis- 
tricts probably  of  Palestine  is  called  Gari (matGa-ri).2  Winckler, 
Hommel  and  Steuernagel  located  it  in  the  Negeb.  Weber  seemed 
to  think  that  it  was  a mistake  for  matGa-(az-)-ri  ( Amarna-T  af  eln 
p.  1319).  In  view  of  the  fact  that  Gazri  is  eight  times  referred 
to  in  the  letters  as  a city  and  not  as  a country,  this  does  not  seem 
probable.  Niebuhr,  followed  by  Knudtzon,  have  suggested  the 
identification  of  the  name  with  the  present  El-Ghor,  the  Jordan 
plain.  In  Ta‘annek  No  2,  there  is  a city  Gur-raki.  It  is  to  be  noted 
that  Gir  figures  prominently  in  Babylonian  place  or  geographical 
names,  which  in  the  light  of  other  facts  gives  rise  to  the  question, 
whether  there  is  any  connection;3  and  especially  as  the  worship 

1 Cf.  the  equation  & Hin — GIR-ra  = A-mur — din-ni  (II  R,  45  : 59e ; V R, 
8:85). 

2 Cf.  Amarna-T  af  eln  256  : 23. 

3 A name  of  Akkad,  as  noted  before,  is  Uri,  which  is  the  name  also  of 
Amurru  (see  Chapter  VII).  It  is,  to  say  the  least,  an  interesting  coinci- 

(121) 


122 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  THE  AMORITES. 


of  the  West  Semitic  god  Gir  was  carried  to  Babylonia  (see  Chap- 
ter XVII). 

A kingdom  which  properly  belonged  to  the  western  region  of 
Amurru  is  that  which  embraced  the  city  of  Damascus.  The  name 
of  the  district  is  called  Ubi  in  the  Amarna  letters  and  the  name  of 
its  chief  principality  is  alDi-mas-qa,  alDu-ma-as-qa  and  alTi-ma- 
as-gi.  The  region  at  this  time  was  subject  to  Egypt.  In  the  Old 
Testament,  the  expedition  of  Abram  to  secure  Lot,  pursued  the 
eastern  allies  unto  Hobah,  which  is  on  the  left  hand  of  Damascus. 
Hobah  has  beeen  identified  with  Ubi.  In  the  time  of  David,  a city 
Zobah  between  Hamath  and  Damascus  is  mentioned  as  the  princi- 
pality of  Rezin,  who  later  established  himself  in  Damascus.  This 
Aramaean  kingdom  lasted  for  over  two  centuries.  The  history  of 
this  kingdom,  which  lost  its  political  importance  when  Rezin  in 
concert  with  Pekali,  king  of  Israel,  rebelled  against  Assyria,  is 
well  known. 

The  fact  that  Damascus  is  not  more  frequently  mentioned  in  the 
inscriptions  of  the  early  period  is  not  due  to  the  fact  that  it  did 
not  possess  much  importance.  The  “eye  of  the  world,”  as  Julian 
called  it,  could  hardly  have  been  other  than  a city  of  the  greatest 
importance  in  the  earliest  period  of  the  land’s  history.  The  plain 
of  Damascus,  regarded  as  the  fairest  of  the  four  earthly  paradises 
by  the  Arab,  a rich  and  beautiful  oasis,  irrigated  by  the  cold  and 
clear  mountain  waters  of  the  Barada,  through  which  also  flows  the 
Pharphar,  and  adorned  with  a wealth  of  parks  and  gardens,  is  a 
veritable  “pearl  of  the  East.”  But  it  was  not  only  a great  city 
in  the  latter  half  of  the  second  millennium  B.  C.  Such  a natural 

(fence  that  the  name  for  the  southern  part  of  Babylonia  has  as  its  chief 
component  also  an  element  similar  to  another  Amorite  geographical  name. 
For  years  it  has  been  held  that  Shin‘ar  (or  Sumer)  is  derived  from  Kin- 
gi(n),  “land  of  the  reed,”  by  assuming  the  palatisation  of  the  k,  which 
becomes  5 before  i,  and  n becomes  r ; i.  e.,  Kin-gin  — Kin-gir  = Singir  — 
■W-  This  explanation  has  been  adopted  by  certain  scholars.  It  seems 
to  the  writer,  however,  since  we  have  no  justification  for  the  reading  Kin- 
gi(n),  that  the  second  element  in  the  name  is  gir,  as  shown  by  Ki-in-gi(r)-ra 
( SBH  130,  obv.  24:  25,  26:  27),  Ki-en-gi {r) -rd(DU)  ( Gudea  cyl.  A 11: 16; 
21:25;  B,  22:22).  The  apocopation  of  r in  Sumerian  is  well  known. 


XII.  THE  MEDITERRANEAN  KINGDOMS. 


123 


site  in  the  very  heart  of  the  ancient  Semitic  world  was  inevitably 
settled  in  the  hoary  past.  Such  a site  on  the  border  of  the  desert, 
a veritable  harbor,  would  never  have  ceased  to  be  inhabited,  and 
would  by  reason  of  its  situation  be  a city  of  craftsmen  and  a mart 
for  a large  area  of  the  Semitic  world.  Such  considerations 
prompted  the  writer  to  look  for  the  city  mentioned  among  the  earli- 
est records  of  Babylonia,  which  resulted  in  the  identification  of 
Mashki  or  Ki-Mashki  in  the  inscriptions  of  Gudea  and  in  date  for- 
mulae of  the  Ur  Dynasty,  as  the  ancient  name  of  the  city;  and 
also  in  asserting  that  it  is  highly  probable  that  Mesheq  in  the  Old 
Testament  (Gen.  15:  2),  is  the  same,  namely  Mash-qi.  In  other 
words,  Mesheq  in  the  passage  is  explained  by  the  gloss  “that  is 
Damascus.”4  There  is  a seal-cylinder  in  the  Hermitage  at 
Petrograd  of  an  ancient  king,  ‘ ‘ Hu-un-ni-ni  patesi  of  Ki-Mashk\ 
governor  of  Madqa  . . .,”  which  apparently  belonged  to  an  early 
period.5 

If  the  identification  of  the  mountain  Mashu  of  the  Gilgamesh 
epic  with  Hermon,  and  the  city  Ki-Mashki  with  Mesheq  (Damascus) 
is  correct  (see  Amurru  126),  then  it  seems  highly  probable  that 
the  early  name  of  the  country  was  Mash,  which  is  to  be  identified 
with  Mash,  “a  son”  of  Aram  (Gen.  10:  23) 6 This  being  true,  the 
name  for  the  Syrian  desert  found  in  the  Assyrian  inscriptions, 
although  read  matBar  by  some,  and  associated  with  the  Hebrew 
word  midbar,  is  preferably  to  be  read  with  others,  matMash.  The 
Joktanites  (Arabian  tribes)  dwelt  in  the  land  “from  Mesha  as  thou 
goest  towards  Sephar,  the  mountain  of  the  East”  (Gen.  10:  30). 
Sephar  has  not  been  located,  but  it  seems  that  the  direction  in  the 
description  of  the  land,  occupied  by  these  descendants  of  Eber,  was 
from  north  to  the  southeast ; and  that  Mesha  is  probably  the  city 
referred  to.  On  the  deity  Mash  and  Mashtu  see  Chapter  XVII. 

4 The  verse  would  then  read:  “And  Abram  said,  0 Lord  God,  what  wilt 
thou  give  me,  seeing  I go  childless  and  my  family  is  a son  of  Mesheq — that 
is  Damascus — Eliezer.”  See  Amurru  129  ff.  and  Miscl.  Inscr.  p.  2. 

5 Cf.  Sayce  VI,  161 ; and  VB  I 176. 

6 The  parallel  passage  1 Chron.  1 : 17,  reads  Meshek  and  the  Septuagint 
in  both  passages  Moo-ox . 


124 


THE  EMPIBE  OF  THE  AMOKITES. 


There  is  a city  Me-is-tu  mentioned  in  the  Amarna  Letters  (256: 
25).  This  may  prove  to  have  been  a city  dedicated  to  the  goddess.7 

In  the  far  north  of  the  Mediterranean  region  there  is  a Semitic 
centre  which  played  an  important  role  in  the  earliest  period  of  his- 
tory, as  it  does  even  at  the  present  time,  namely  Aleppo.  It  is  long 
since  that  Hallapu,  probably  also  written  Halman,  has  been  iden- 
tified by  scholars  with  Aleppo.8  Its  great  distance,  however,  from 
Babylonia,  as  well  as  other  reasons,-  is  responsible  for  hesitation 
on  the  part  of  some  in  accepting  this  identification.9  The  nat- 
ural features  of  the  city  make  it  another  location  that  would  early 
be  sought  by  people ; and  this,  it  would  seem,  adds  to  the  reason- 
ableness of  the  identification. 

Two  fragments  of  a historical  epic  which  deals  with  events  of 
the  time  of  Sliar-banda  and  Tammuz,  two  kings  who  ruled  in  the 
earliest  era  known,  refer  to  wars  against  Elam  below,  Halma 
above,  and  Tidnum  in  the  West  (see  Chapter  VIII).  Halma  is 
identified  as  another  form  of  the  name  Halman. 

A text  which  has  just  been  published  by  Barton  is  of  the  greatest 
importance  in  this  connection  ( MBI  1).  It  is  the  earliest  reli- 
gious text  known.  It  was  probably" written,  as  he  maintains,  about 
the  time  of  Sargon  the  founder  of  the  dynasty  of  Akkad,  who 
ruled,  the  present  writer  inclines  to  think,  much  earlier  than  the 
late  date  now  generally  assigned  to  him.  Barton  reads  the  pas- 
sage in  the  text:  Tispak-ra  ki  za-ka-unu-sii  and  translates:  “To 
Ishtar  from  the  land  of  Haleb.  ’ ’ This  text  identifies  the  goddess 
Ashirta,  as  the  present  writer  prefers  to  write  the  name,  with  the 
city  Halabu.  We  then  recall  the  passage  in  the  prologue  of  the 
Code  of  Hammurabi  (III  50  f.)  which  reads:  “Who  put  into  exe- 
cution the  laws  of  Aleppo,  who  makes  the  heart  of  Ashirta  rejoice, 
the  illustrious  prince,  the  lifting  up  of  whose  hands  Adad  recog- 

7 If  the  writer’s  reading  En-Mashtu  for  the  Aramaic  transcription  of 
dNin-IB,  namely  nC’UN,  is  correct  (see  above  and  Amurru  p.  200),  the 
town  al31e-is-tu  may  be  the  alNin-IB  of  the  Amarna  Letters. 

8 See  Delitzsch  Parodies  p.  275 ; EAT 3 47  etc. 

0 The  fact  that  Halabu  and  Bit  Karkara  are  mentioned  in  the  prologue 
to  the  Hammurabi  Code  between  Girsu  and  Adab  is  suggestive  that  they 
were  Babylonian  cities ; blit  this  is  by  no  means  conclusive.  That  this  city 
was  a part  of  Babylon,  as  has  been  inferred,  seems  impossible. 


XII.  THE  MEDITERRANEAN  KINGDOMS. 


125 


nizes;  who  appeases  the  heart  of  Adad  the  warrior  in  Karkar, 
who  reestablishes  the  appointments  of  the  temple  fi-ud-gal-gal. 
These  two  passages  point  to  the  fact  that  this  is  the  most  impor- 
tant centre  of  Ashirta-Ishtar  worship  known;  and  also,  together 
with  the  first  mentioned  passage,  indicate  that  the  city  was  one  of 
great  prominence  in  the  early  period  of  Babylonian  history. 

3 Ashirta-Ishtar  has  been  regarded  by  some  scholars  as  a uni- 
versal Semitic  goddess,  who  became  a male  deity  in  some  lands. 
Her  worship,  however,  originally  had  a centre  somewhere  in  the 
Semitic  world.  The  texts  from  the  Mesopotamian  region  would 
not  lead  us  to  suppose  that  her  habitat  had  been  there.  The  view 
that  Ashirta-Ishtar  had  her  origin  in  Arabia  and  is  a development 
from  the  male  god  Athtar  has  little  in  it ; nor  was  she  borrowed 
from  Babylonia.  In  the  light  of  the  fact  that  the  cult  of  Ashirta 
prevailed  so  extensively  in  Western  Amurru,  and  was  carried  com- 
paratively early  to  Egypt,  it  would  seem  that  her  habitat  was 
somewhere  in  the  Mediterranean  district.  Surely  the  two  texts 
referred  to,  the  one  belonging  to  the  early  Semitic  period,  and  the 
other  to  the  time  of  Hammurabi,  lead  us  to  believe  not  only  that 
Halabu,  or  Aleppo,  is  the  most  important  centre  of  her  worship 
known,  but  also  that  it  was  probably  her  original  habitat.  This 
fact  may  throw  light  upon  the  Cappadocian  tablets,  which  furnish 
us  with  many  names  compounded  with  Ashir  and  Ashirta.  Prob- 
ably the  home  of  each  was  in  this  northwestern  region  of  the 
Semitic  world. 

Halabu  was  also  a centre  of  Adad  worship,  of  which  we  have 
several  indications  in  the  inscriptions.  The  Code  of  Hammurabi 
in  the  passage  above  referred  to,  as  well  as  the  syllabaries,  point 
to  this  fact.  In  CT  25  16 : 22  dIl-Ha-al-la-bu=dIM.  Naturally  it 
is  possible  that  another  of  the  many  names  of  the  storm-god  may 
be  implied,  as  Ashir,  Uru,  etc.,  but  for  the  present  Adad  is  under- 
stood.10 Prefixing  and  pronouncing  the  word  “god”  besides 
writing  the  determinative  for  deity  are  West  Semitic  customs,  to 
which  the  writer  has  previously  referred.  In  short,  it  is  highly 
probable  that  when  excavations  are  conducted  in  this  region,  light 
will  be  forthcoming  that  will  show  not  only  that  this  is  a very 

10  Cf.  also  eqli  dSin  dHa-la-baki  VS  7,  95 : 4. 


126 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  THE  AMORITES. 


ancient  seat  of  Semitic  culture  but  the  home  of  the  Ashirta  cult 
(see  also  Chapter  XVII). 

From  the  Egyptian  inscriptions  it  is  ascertained  that  at  least 
several  of  the  coastal  cities,  notably  Byblos,  were  in  existence  in 
the  third  millennium  B.  C.,  and,  as  stated,  there  is  reason  for 
believing  the  city  had  a much  greater  antiquity  (see  Chapter  XIV). 
Simyra,  another  city  on  the  coast  mentioned  in  the  Amarna  texts, 
the  modern  Sumra,  is  also  known  in  the  texts  of  the  third  millen- 
nium B.  C.,  having  been  identified  with  Simuru  mentioned  in  the 
date  formula  of  the  55th  year  of  Dungi,  king  of  Ur,  about  2400  B.  C. 
Some  hold  that  Simuru  was  situated  in  the  mountainous  district 
to  the  east  of  the  Tigris,  because  the  subjection  of  the  four  cities 
Urbillu,  Simuru,  Lulubu,  and  Ganhar  formed  the  object  of  a single 
campaign  ( SA , p.  287).  This  does  not  seem  conclusive,  for  it  is 
quite  possible  that  Lulubu  was  chastised  at  the  beginning  or  at  the 
ending  of  the  year’s  campaign.  Urbillum  may  have  been  a city 
in  the  vicinity  of  Simuru.  On  his  following  campaign,  Dungi 
destroyed  Humurti  and  Ki-Masliki.  Humurti  has  long  since  been 
identified  by  some  with  the  Biblical  Gomorrah,  being  a good  tran- 
script of  that  name  in  cuneiform;  and  Ki-Mashki,  as  noted  above, 
is  very  probably  Damascus.  Certainly  Dungi  in  gaining  the 
title  “king  of  the  four  quarters,”  had  at  least  conquered  part  of 
Amurru.  Here  properly  the  Amorite  kingdom  of  the  Lebanon 
region  can  be  referred  to,  which  belonged  to  the  latter  half  of  the 
second  millennium  B.  C. 

The  letters  written  in  the  Babylonian  language  and  script  to 
Amenhotcp  III  and  Amenliotep  IV  by  kings  and  subject  princes, 
including  copies  of  letters  sent  from  Egypt,  in  the  fifteenth  cen- 
tury B.  C.,  enable  us  to  lift  the  curtain  and  get  an  intimate  acquain- 
tance with  the  political  situation  of  Western  Amurru  at  that  time. 
The  discovery  of  the  Hittite  archives  at  Boghaz-koi,  an  ancient 
capital  of  the  Hittites,  written  in  the  same  language  and  script, 
supplements  our  knowledge  of  this  period  from  a different  source 
in  a most  remarkable  manner ; and  also  throws  light  on  more  than 
a century  of  years  following  the  Amarna  times.  These  documents 
include  treaties  made  by  the  Hittites  with  kingdoms  and  states  in 
Amurru  (see  MDOG  35).  For  years  the  Amarna  tablets  have 
been  discussed  and  the  light  offered  by  the  Boghaz-koi  tablets  has 


XII.  THE  MEDITERRANEAN  KINGDOMS. 


127 


also  been  incorporated  in  the  histories  of  the  ancient  Near  East. 
When  more  knowledge  of  the  early  peoples  of  Amurru  is  forth- 
coming through  excavations  and  research,  these  inscriptions  will 
figure  prominently  in  a comprehensive  reconstruction  of  the  land’s 
history. 

In  the  reign  of  Thutmose  I (1547M501),  the  Mitanni  nation, 
probably  an  Aryan  people,  is  found  occupying  Aram,  having  taken 
possession  of  the  old  Semitic  centre  in  some  previous  period. 
Mitanni  apparently  was  a strong  nation,  and  had  great  influence 
upon  Amurru  and  Babylonia.  Though  the  Cassites  were  ruling  at 
Babylon,  we  find  the  nomenclature  of  the  land  contains  a great 
many  Mitannian  names.  In  the  Amarna  letters,  many  of  the  city 
princes  of  Amurru  also  bear  them.  How  is  this  to  be  accounted 
for?  Did  Mitanni  at  some  previous  time  control  Amurru  along 
the  Mediterranean?  Three  or  four  decades  after  the  Hyksos  were 
driven  out  of  Egypt,  Thutmose  I is  found  contesting  the  supremacy 
of  Mitanni.  Probably  we  shall  later  on  find  that  Mitanni  played 
a role  in  the  movement  that  brought  the  Hyksos  into  Egypt. 
Thutmose  IV,  a century  later,  desiring  to  establish  friendly  rela- 
tions with  Mitanni,  secured  the  daughter  of  Artatama,  the  king, 
for  his  son  in  marriage.  She  is  thought  to  be  the  mother  of  his 
son,  Amenhotep  III.  The  two  kings  of  Mitanni  who  followed, 
Shuttarna  and  Dushratta,  also  sought  alliance  with  Egypt. 

In  the  Amarna  period,  however,  Mitanni ’s  power  was  waning 
and  seemed  to  give  way  to  the  Hittites.  Internal  troubles  prob- 
ably were  responsible  for  this,  for  we  find  Itakama,  prince  of  the 
city  Kinza,  who  belonged  to  the  ruling  house  of  Mitanui,  in  league 
with  the  Hittites.  Sliubbiluliuma,  their  king,  having  previously 
suffered  at  the  hands  of  Mitanni,  saw  his  opportunity  to  push  fur- 
ther south  and  make  inroads  upon  the  Egyptian  districts  and 
Mitanni.  In  league  also  with  Abdi-Ashirta  and  Aziru,  Amorite 
princes  in  the  Lebanon  district  who  were  subject  to  Egypt,  he  suc- 
ceeded in  stirring  up  a revolt.  These  princes  worked  in  the  inter- 
ests of  the  Hittites  and  yet  maintained  their  relations  with  Egypt 
by  a duplicity  that  is  almost  incredible.  The  Phoenician  prince 
Rib-Addi  of  Byblos  insistently  made  efforts  to  open  the  eyes  of 
the  Pharaoh,  but  in  this  he  failed.  When  asked  why  he  had 
taken  Simyra,  Abdi-Ashirta  pleaded  that  he  had  done  so  because 


128 


THE  EMPIRE  OP  THE  AMORITES. 


he  was  asked  to  deliver  the  city  from  the  Shehlal.  At  last  the 
insistent  declarations  of  Rib-Addi  and  other  loyal  princes  had 
effect,  and  the  prince’s  treachery  became  clear;  whereupon  an 
army  under  the  Egyptian  Amanappa  was  sent,  and  Simyra  was 
retaken,  and  with  the  land  Naharin,  was  restored  to  Egyptian 
authority. 

Shubbiluliuma,  not  wishing  to  force  matters  at  this  time,  aban- 
doned Itakama  of  Kinza  and  withdrew.  When  the  Egyptians  had 
retired  he  fell  upon  districts  of  Mitanni,  and  without  meeting 
Dushratta,  marched  in  force  into  Naharin.  Some  princes  resisted ; 
cities  were  captured;  and  the  people  of  Qatna  and  the  land  of 
Nuhashshi  were  carried  off  to  the  Hittite  region.  Itakama,  who 
had  in  the  meantime  reestablished  his  relations  with  the  Pharaoh, 
together  with  his  father  Sliutarna,  attacked  the  Iiittites ; but  they 
were  defeated,  and  carried  away. 

On  the  accession  of  Amenhotep  IV  to  the  throne,  the  kings  of 
Mitanni  and  Babylonia  sent  assurances  of  their  sympathy  on  his 
father’s  death;  and  Shubbiluliuma  also  wrote  him,  recognizing 
his  sovereignty  in  Asia.  At  this  time  he  refrained  from  doing 
any  overt  acts  which  might  arouse  him.  The  Pharaoh,  however, 
understanding  the  situation,  had  no  desire  to  continue  relations 
with  him.  Later  the  Hittite  king  wrote  asking  why  he  had  not 
continued  the  correspondence  which  had  been  kept  up  by  his  father. 
A Hittite  embassy  even  appeared  at  the  new  capital,  which  had 
been  created  by  Amenhotep ; but  he  abandoned  relations  with  the 
Plittites,  for  they  had  encroached  upon  his  land. 

Abdi-Ashirta  having  been  killed,  his  place  was  taken  by  Aziru, 
his  son,  who  had  already  assisted  the  Hittites  in  taking  Qatna,  and 
in  inspiring  the  princes  of  Ubi,  the  district  about  Damascus,  to 
revolt.  With  the  assistance  of  the  men  of  Arvad  he  attacked 
Simyra,  which  with  Byblos  alone  had  held  out,  for  Irkata,  Ullaza, 
Sidon,  Beirut,  and  other  cities  had  been  defeated,  and  had  gone 
over  to  him,  while  many  other  cities  had  been  captured.  During 
the  time  this  had  transpired,  the  faithful  vassal,  Rib-Addi  of 
Byblos,  continued  to  write  beseechingly  many  times  to  his  king, 
exposing  the  treachery  of  Aziru  and  begging  for  help;  but  his 
efforts  were  futile ; in  the  end  he  was  killed,  and  his  city  taken. 


XII.  THE  MEDITERRANEAN  KINGDOMS. 


129 


Phoenicia,  and  the  Lebanon  region  north  of  it,  including  the 
Orontes  valley,  about  as  far  as  Antioch,  acknowledged  the  leader- 
ship of  the  Amorite  Azirn. 

The  disaffection  of  the  northern  Amorites  had  its  effect  upon 
the  Canaanite  princes.  Several,  as  Milkili,  Labaya,  Zimrida  and 
others,  followed  the  same  course  of  treachery  that  Abdi-Ashirta 
and  Aziru  had  indulged  in.  Some  of  the  southern  princes,  Biridiya 
of  Megiddo,  Abdi-Hiba  of  Jerusalem  and  others  remained  faithful 
to  Egypt  and  insistently  appealed,  as  did  Rib-Addi,  for  help,  to 
stem  the  tide  of  the  Habiri  and  Sutu;  but  finally  the  land  suc- 
cumbed. 

Aziru  was  summoned  to  appear  before  the  Pharaoh  after  he  had 
captured  the  cities  and  killed  Rib-Addi,  Abi-milki,  and  other 
princes.  After  some  delay  he  appeared  at  the  Egyptian  court, 
and  succeeded,  through  influence,  in  convincing  Amenhotep  that 
he  was  loyal;  and  having  acknowledged  Egyptian  suzerainty,  was 
returned  to  his  land  and  reinstated,  by  the  grace  of  Egypt,  as  a 
ruler  of  a kingdom  of  considerable  extent.  But  his  allegiance  to 
Egypt,  if  he  was  actually  sincere,  was  of  short  duration.  Shub- 
biluliuma  had  sent  his  mercenaries,  the  Habiri,  to  assist  him  in 
capturing  the  cities,  and  he  had  regarded  him  in  consequence  as  his 
vassal.  He  therefore  attacked  and  defeated  Aziru,  who  cast  him- 
self at  his  feet,  and  swore  allegiance.  He  was  compelled  to  enter 
into  a treaty;  and  an  annual  tribute  of  300  shekels  in  gold  was 
placed  upon  him.  Aziru  in  the  treaty  is  named  as  “the  king  of 
the  Amorites.”  Although  the  Habiri  had  assisted  the  northern 
as  well  as  the  southern  princes  to  throw  off  the  yoke  of  Egypt,  it 
is  not  clear  that  Aziru ’s  kingdom  included  Canaan.  From  the 
treaty  drawn  up  in  the  time  of  Ramses  II,  it  would  seem  that  the 
Pharaoh  had  concluded  an  alliance  with  Shubbiluliuma,  leaving  him 
in  possession  of  Amurru.  With  Aziru ’s  grandson,  Abbi-Teshshub, 
the  terms  of  the  Amorite  vassalage  were  renewed  in  a treaty  which 
Mursil,  the  son  of  Shubbiluliuma,  made  with  him. 

The  Hittites  continued  to  maintain  their  authority  in  the  district 
for  four  or  five  decades,  until  the  stupor  that  enveloped  Egypt, 
which  had  been  brought  on  by  Amenhotep  IV,  had  disappeared. 
When  Seti  I came  to  the  throne,  he  pushed  through  Palestine  into 


130 


THE  EMPIRE  OP  THE  AMORITES. 


Phoenicia,  where  the  restoration  of  Egyptian  supremacy  was 
probably  welcomed.  He  crossed  the  Jordan  and  set  up  his  bound- 
ary stele  in  the  Hauran.  On  a later  campaign  he  met  Hittite 
forces  farther  north,  but  it  seems  he  only  succeeded  in  reestablish- 
ing Egypt’s  boundary  south  of  the  Lebanons.  During  the  time 
when  Ramses  II  was  active  in  Amurru,  the  Amorites  under  Put- 
Ahi  threw  off  their  allegiance  to  the  Hittites ; but  this  king  was 
later  reinstated  on  the  same  terms  of  vassalage,  and  Gashuliawi, 
a Hittite  princess,  was  given  him  in  marriage.  The  Hittite  king 
stipulated  in  the  treaty  that  the  sovereignty  of  the  land  should 
pass  to  the  son  and  descendants  of  his  daughter  (see  MDOG  35, 
43  ff.). 

In  the  treaty  later  drawn  up  by  Ramses  II  and  Hattusil  II,  the 
boundary  between  the  two  lands  is  not  mentioned.  Probably  it 
was  not  advanced  beyond  the  point  established  by  his  father; 
although  this  is  also  indefinite.  In  the  rocks  near  Beirut,  in  his 
early  years  he  had  carved  a stele ; at  this  time  he  carved  two  more, 
which  may  mark  the  extreme  point  of  his  supremacy.  This  being 
true,  the  Lebanon  country  north  of  Phoenicia,  ruled  by  Put- Alii, 
continued  to  be  Hittite.  Since  the  Solomonic  kingdom  did  not 
embrace  Phoenicia  and  the  coastal  cities  further  north,  it  is  not 
unlikely  that  this  kingdom  continued  to  maintain  its  identity  for 
several  centuries ; not  only  in  quasi-independence,  but  probably, 
at  least  for  part  of  the  time,  free  from  the  suzerainty  of  other 
nations.  On  the  Amorite  kings  who  ruled  on  the  east  and  west 
side  of  the  Jordan  see  Chapter  XV. 


XIII 

AMORITES  IN  CAPPADOCIA 

As  early  as  1881  Pinches  called  attention  to  two  tablets,  one  in 
the  British  Museum  and  the  other  in  the  Louvre,  which  he  con- 
sidered were  written  in  an  unfamiliar  language,  and  which  because 
the  tablets  had  come  from  the  neighborhood  of  Caesarea,  he  called 
Cappadocian  (PS BA  Nov.  1881  11  ff.).  A little  later  Professor 
Wm.  M.  Ramsay,  at  the  suggestion  of  Professor  Sayce,  searched 
in  the  bazaars  of  Caesarea  for  additional  specimens  of  these  tab- 
lets, five  of  which  he  was  able  to  secure.  Subsequently  M.  Chantre, 
the  French  explorer,  excavated  Kara  Eyuk  “the  black  mound”, 
so  called  because  it  is  a mass  of  charred  and  burnt  remains,  about 
fifteen  miles  to  the  north-east  of  Caesarea,  where  the  inscriptions 
were  said  to  have  been  found.  Besides  tablets,  considerable 
pottery  and  other  antiquities  were  discovered  at  the  site.  (Mis- 
sion en  Cappadoce  71  ff.) 

In  1889  M.  Gfolenischeff,  the  Russian  Egyptologist,  published 
a group  of  twenty-four  tablets  coming  from  the  same  quarter, 
which  he  secured  in  the  bazaars  at  Caesarea,  Constantinople,  and 
Cairo.  He  determined  that  they  were  written  in  an  Assyrian  dia- 
lect; and  was  able  to  read  most  of  the  names.  Later  Delitzsch 
published  an  important  philological  study  of  these  tablets ; which 
was  followed  by  a discussion  of  them  on  the  part  of  Jensen.  Sub- 
sequently Sayce  and  Peiser  published  transliterations  and  trans- 
lations of  a selection  of  the  texts.  Other  tablets  have  since  been 
published  by  Pinches,  Sayce,  Scheil,  and  Thureau-Dangin.1  It 
was  early  pointed  out  by  Sayce  and  others  that  the  people  of  this 
district  observed  a week  of  five  days  (hamustum) , and  reckoned 
time  by  a succession  of  officers  called  eponyms  (iimmu),  a custom 
which  we  know  the  Assyrians  observed  in  the  first  millennium  B.  C. 
These  facts  considered  in  connection  with  the  use  in  names  of  the 

1 For  a bibliography  of  the  Cappadocian  literature,  see  Johns  Schweich 
Lectures  1912  88  f. 


(131) 


132 


THE  EMPIBE  OF  THE  AMOBITES. 


gocl  Ashir  or  Ashur  were  responsible  for  the  assertion  that  the 
people  represented  a colony  from  Assyria. 

More  recently  Sayce  has  proposed  that  the  tablets  show  that  the 
silver,  copper  and  lead  mines  of  the  Taurus  were  worked  for  Baby- 
lonian firms ; that  roads  and  walled  cities  had  been  built  in  that 
region  in  order  that  troops  could  maintain  order  for  the  Baby- 
lonian merchants  and  their  agents ; and  that  the  soldiers  were 
mainly  drafted  from  Assyria,  which  was  then  a province  of  Baby- 
lonia.2 The  view  that  the  names  represent  Assyrians,  and  that 
the  tablets  are  dated  according  to  Assyrian  eponyms  is  shared 
also  by  Meyer.3  It  is  Jastrow’s  idea  that  the  discovery  of  these 
tablets  shows  that  the  Babylonians  had  established  an  outpost  here 
against  the  Hittites ; that  they  are  proof  of  active  business  trans- 
actions between  the  Euphrates  valley  and  Asia  Minor;  and  that 
they  are  of  the  greatest  value  in  illustration  of  trade  routes  that 
must  have  been  established  through  the  heart  of  Asia  Minor  at  this 
early  period.4  It  is  not  impossible  that  these  observations  will 
ultimately  prove  to  be  fact;  but  nevertheless  they  must  for  the 
present  be  considered  as  wholly  hypothetical. 

The  only  connection  with  Babylonia  found  on  the  tablets  is  in 
the  impression  of  a seal  found  upon  one  of  them  ( RA  VIII  142) ; 
the  inscription  of  which  reads : 


Ibi-Sin 

The  mighty  king 
King  of  Ur 

King  of  the  four  quarters 


Ur-dShar-banda 

Scribe 

Son  of  Ur-Nigin-Gar 
thy  servant 


The  design  of  the  seal  portrays  a seated  deity,  before  whom  stands 
a demigod  leading  the  worshipper.  This  seal  which  has  its 
inscription  written  in  Sumerian  is  in  every  way  an  exact  counter- 
part of  many  seals  found  in  Babylonia  belonging  to  the  Ur 
Dynasty;  and  is  of  a type  altogether  different  from  other  seal 
impressions  on  the  tablet.  It  also  should  be  added  that  the  indivi- 
dual bearing  the  name  that  is  on  the  seal  is  not  found  in  the  text. 

With  the  exception  of  this  seal  the  art  of  the  others  on  the  tablet 


2 Museum  Journal  IX  p.  149. 

3 Reich  und  Kultur  der  Chetiter  p.  51. 

4 The  War  and  the  Bagdad  Railway  p.  40. 


XIII.  AMOEITES  IN'  CAPPADOCIA. 


133 


that  have  been  published  seems  to  he  of  a different  type,  and  shows 
characteristics  which  are  peculiar  to  the  seals  that  Ward  has  desig- 
nated as  Syro-Hittite.  The  inscriptions  of  eight  seal  impressions 
of  different  tablets  published  by  Thureau-Dangin,  with  the  one 
mentioned  above,  are  composed  of  two  lines,  written  phonetically, 
an  example  of  which  is : 

Ib-ni-dAdad 
son  of  I-ti-A-sur. 

The  art,  as  shown  in  the  reproductions  of  the  seals,  which  are  not 
so  clear  as  one  could  desire,  seems  to  show  that  it  also  is  different 
from  what  is  recognized  as  Babylonian. 

What  appears  to  be  the  only  actual  connection  with  Assyria  that 
can  be  shown  is  to  be  found  in  a seal  impression  on  another  tablet 
from  Kara  Eyuk,  published  by  Sayce,  which  bears  the  follow- 
ing inscriptions:  Sarru-kenu(f)  pa-te-si  dA-sir  mar  I-\ku-num\ 
pa-te-sidA-[sir ] “Sarfgon],  priest-king  or  Ashir,  son  of  Ifkunum], 
priest-king  of  Ashir”  ( Babyloniaca  IV  66  ff . ) . A transcription 
of  the  inscription  has  been  published,  but  not  a photographic 
reproduction  of  the  seal  impression.  Whether  any  images  accom- 
pany the  inscription  is  not  stated. 

Sayce  restored  the  name  I-[ku-num\,  and  ingeniously  suggested 
that  Sarru-kenu  is  an  abbreviation  of  the  name  S ar -ken-kata- Asir , 
whose  name  follows  Ikunum  as  an  ancestor  of  Ashir-rim-nisheshu 
( KTA  63:  6)  on  the  supposition  that  in  this  inscription  they  are 
father  and  son;  although  close  relationship  cannot  exist  between 
the  other  three  kings  or  patesis  who  restored  the  wall  of  Ashur 
during  a period  of  about  seven  hundred  years. 

In  the  advanced  notice  of  the  Ashur  excavations  reference  is 
made  to  a Sliarru-ki-in  son  of  Ikunum  in  a newly  discovered 
inscription  ( MDOG  38  p.  33,  also  49  p.  50).  It  would  seem,  there- 
fore, that  Sayce ’s  suggestion  is  probably  correct,  although  it  is 
possible  that  there  was  a later  ruler  named  Shar-ken-kata-Ashir. 
Moreover,  the  inscription  of  the  seal  found  on  the  Cappadocian 
tablet  refers  to  Sargon,  son  of  I[kunum],  who  were  both  patesis 
of  Ashur. 

This  seal,  besides  the  employment  of  the  five-day  week  ( hamus - 
turn),  the  dating  by  archons  for  reckoning  time  ( limmu ),  and  the 
deity  Ashir  found  in  personal  names,  represent  the  points  of  con- 


134 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  THE  AMORITES. 


tact  with  Assyria  that  have  been  pointed  out ; and  the  seal  impres- 
sion discussed  above  is  the  only  point  of  contact  with  Babylonia, 
except  that  the  Babylonian  syllabary  is  used.  The  working  of 
mines  by  Babylonian  firms,  the  building  of  roads  and  fortresses  as 
outposts  against  the  Hittites,  the  drafting  of  soldiers  from 
Assyria,  the  business  relations  between  the  Euphrates  Valley  and 
Asia  Minor,  although  possible,  are  purely  conjectural  ideas.  In 
the  many  Cappadocian  tablets  published  the  writer  sees  no  basis 
for  any  of  these  statements.  On  the  contrary,  they  are  business 
and  legal  documents  such  as  are  commonly  known  as  contracts  and 
decisions,  as  well  as  letters  of  the  character  usually  found  in  Baby- 
lonian temple  archives.  The  transactions  referred  to  are  local 
business  affairs ; and  indicate  a state  of  society  quite  independent 
of  far-off  Babylonia  or  Assyria. 

The  tablet  with  the  Babylonian  seal  gives  the  names  of  three 
witnesses,  Zilulu,  Asur-dan,  and  Ikunum,  and  mentions  their  seals. 
On  the  tablet,  however,  are  five  seal  impressions,  three  of  which 
bear  names  Ikunum,  Amur-Asir  and  the  Ur-dSar-banda  the  royal 
scribe  on  the  seal  in  question.  The  two  impressions  without  names 
could  be  those  of  Zilulu  and  Asur-dan,  and  that  of  the  other,  the 
scribe  who  wrote  the  tablet.  But  in  what  capacity  was  the  seal  of 
Amur-Asir  used,  as  his  name  is  not  in  the  text? 

The  seal  of  Ur-dShar-banda  may  have  belonged  to  a royal  scribe 
who  drew  up  the  document;  in  which  case  the  tablet  was  written 
in  the  time  of  Ibi-Sin,  King  of  Ur.  It  of  course  may  have  been 
used  at  a later  time  by  one  of  the  contracting  parties  of  the  docu- 
ment or  a witness  who  had  come  into  possession  of  it.  The  occur- 
rence of  the  seal  bearing  the  name  Amur-Asir  must  be  explained 
in  this  way;  for  as  stated,  no  individual  of  that  name  is  mentioned 
in  the  document.  However,  since  we  know  that  the  control  of  the 
Ur  kings  very  probably  reached  into  this  region,  and  because 
the  script  of  the  tablet  can  be  said  to  belong  to  this  general  period, 
it  is  possible  that  the  scribe  was  a representative  of  the  crown. 
This  being  true,  how  is  the  existence  of  the  names  in  the  tablets 
which  are  compounded  with  that  of  the  deity  Asliir  or  Ashur,  and 
the  observance  of  the  liamustum  and  limmu  to  be  explained,  if  what 
scholars  assert  is  true,  namely  that  these  are  importations  from 
Assyria?  If  that  is  correct,  it  follows  that  they  are  indications 


XIII.  AMORITES  IN  CAPPADOCIA. 


135 


of  a greater  antiquity  for  the  Assyrian  civilization  than  is  at  pres- 
ent recognized.  But  it  scarcely  seems  reasonable  that  Assyrian 
soldiers  in  the  control  and  service  of  Babylonia  would  have  had 
such  influence  upon  the  culture  of  the  district  as  the  introduction 
of  such  institutions  as  the  hamustum,  and  that  documents  would 
be  dated  according  to  Assyrian  reckoning.  Rather  does  it  seem, 
if  these  are  actually  importations,  that  Assyria  dominated  the  dis- 
trict in  some  earlier  period,  of  which  also  we  do  not  have  at  pres- 
ent the  slightest  indication. 

The  tablet  with  the  Assyrian  seal  discovered  in  Cappadocia, 
and  written  in  the  Cappadocian  dialect,  raises  questions  even  more 
difficult  to  answer.  Is  it  actually  a seal  of  the  patesi;  and  if  so, 
was  he  present  in  person;  or  was  it  used  by  some  official  to  give 
authority  to  his  action?  If  there  was  one  ruler  named  Ilu-shuma 
in  the  early  period  who  was  a contemporary  of  Sumu-abu,  the 
founder  of  the  Babylon  dynasty,  Sargon  would  have  ruled  about 
the  time  of  the  grandfather  of  Hammurabi.  If,  as  Meyer  proposes, 
there  were  two  early  rulers  named  Ilu-shuma  ( Geschichte  §463), 
then  Sargon  could  have  ruled  perhaps  after  the  time  of  Hammu- 
rabi. Moreover,  the  question  is,  did  the  jurisdiction  of  Assyria 
extend  to  this  far  away  district  of  Asia  Minor  also  in  this  period? 
If  the  kings  of  the  Ur  Dynasty  controlled  this  region  at  an  earlier 
time,  did  Assyria,  when  Ur  lost  its  supremacy,  come  into  posses- 
sion of  it?  If  so,  Assyria  must  have  played  a role  in  the  overthrow 
of  the  Ur  Dynasty,  of  which  also  there  is  at  present  not  the  slight- 
est indication.  Moreover,  in  the  time  of  Hammurabi,  as  above,  we 
know  Babylon  was  the  suzerain  over  Assyria. 

At  Yuzgat  a large  tablet  was  found  written  in  the  same  script, 
but  in  another  dialect,  probably  the  same  as  the  tablets  from 
Arzawa  in  the  Amarna  collection.  This  tablet  is  in  possession  of 
the  University  of  Liverpool.  Another,  purchased  at  Aleppo,  now 
in  the  possession  of  Mr.  Berens,  which  was  published  by  Sayce 
( PSBA  1907  91  ff.),  probably  came  from  a Hittite  source  in 
northern  Syria.  In  the  spring  of  1914  about  two  thousand  tablets 
were  discovered  somewhere  in  Cappadocia,  a large  number  of 
which  are  now  in  the  British  Museum,  the  Ashmolean  Museum  and 
the  Bodleian  Library  at  Oxford.  Unfortunately  these  have  not 
yet  been  published  or  deciphered. 


136 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  THE  AMORITES. 


Tlie  discovery  of  the  Amarna  tablets  written  by  princes  through- 
out Western  Asia  lias  shown  how  extended  was  the  use  of  the  Baby- 
lonian syllabary  and  also  the  language  in  the  middle  of  the  second 
millennium.  Some  of  the  letters  show  that  the  script  was  used 
also  for  other  languages.  The  same  is  demonstrated  by  the  dis- 
covery of  the  Hittite  archives  at  Boghaz-koi,  not  far  from  Kara 
Eyuk  on  the  other  side  of  the  Halys.  In  other  words,  we  are 
familiar  with  an  extensive  use  of  the  Babylonian  language  and 
script  in  the  second  millennium  B.  C.  in  this  part  of  the  ancient 
civilized  world. 

The  Kara  Eyuk  tablets,  we  are  led  to  believe,  belong  to  the  third 
millennium,  which  supposition  is  based  largely  upon  the  script 
being  regarded  as  early  Babylonian.  The  question  therefore 
arises,  how  much  earlier  was  what  we  call  the  Babylonian  script  in 
use  in  this  part  of  the  ancient  world?  It  is  known  that  Babylonian 
kings  a millennium  earlier  than  the  Ur  Dynasty  exploited  this 
region.  Were  their  language  and  script  then  introduced? 
Scarcely  the  surface  has  been  scratched  in  this  vast  region.  Most 
of  what  we  know  at  present  of  the  peoples  who  lived  there  has  been 
gained  through  what  is  called  surface  research.  Kara  Eyuk, 
Boghaz-koi,  and  a few  other  sites  have  been  examined,  but  what 
revelations  will  excavations  at  other  sites  in  Lvcia,  Phrygia,  Cili- 
cia or  Pamphylia  bring  forth.  A civilization  comparable  in  anti- 
quity and  development  with  that  of  Egypt  and  Babylonia  doubtless 
existed  in  Asia  Minor.  The  discovery  of  the  Minoan  civilization 
in  Crete  dating  about  2800  B.  C.  offers  a foretaste  of  what  is  to  be 
expected.  The  ruin  hills  of  Asia  Minor  when  excavated  will  yield 
materials  not  only  for  the  solution  of  innumerable  problems,  but 
also  for  knowledge  of  undreamed  of  peoples  and  civilizations  prior 
to  the  dawn  of  the  Greek  period.  Not  many  years  ago  nothing  was 
known  of  the  Hittites  save  what  is  contained  in  the  Old  Testament. 
To-day  largely  through  contemporaneous  records  from  other  lands, 
and  also  through  some  of  their  own,  we  know  considerable  about 
the  Hittite  empire  which  played  such  an  important  role  among  the 
great  nations.  Presumably  through  excavations  other  peoples  of 
this  district  will  become  known,  the  knowledge  of  whom  may  com- 
pel a radical  readjustment  of  our  ideas  concerning  origins  and  the 
early  history  of  Western  Asia. 


XIII.  AMORITES  IN  CAPPADOCIA. 


137 


While,  as  above,  the  syllabary  used  in  these  Cappadocian  tablets 
is  what  we  call  early  Babylonian,  it  must  be  kept  in  mind  that  the 
handwriting’  of  these  inscriptions  is  peculiar  to  the  district.  Cap- 
padocian tablets  can  usually  be  recognized  by  their  general  appear- 
ance. The  script  has  peculiarities,  and  as  mentioned,  they  are 
written  in  what  is  regarded  as  a dialect,  under  the  influence  of  the 
Hittite  or  some  other  tongue  of  the  region.  The  tablet  with  the 
Babylonian  seal  impression  was  scarcely  written  by  the  royal  Baby- 
lonian scribe  whose  seal  it  bore.  Nor  is  it  likely  that  the  seal 
belonged  to  a local  scribe,  for  the  names  of  the  seal  are  inscribed  in 
Sumerian.  Then  also,  as  mentioned,  the  art  of  this  seal  is  typical 
Babylonian.  In  short,  the  character  and  contents  of  the  docu- 
ments, the  forms  used  in  the  contracts,  the  language,  the  script,  etc., 
do  not  show  that  they  were  written  by  Babylonians  or  Assyrians, 
or  in  the  interests  of  Babylonians  or  Assyrians ; but  imply  rather 
that  they  are  the  products  of  a civilization  that  may  have  existed 
for  a long  time  in  this  region.  Further,  the  custom  of  dating 
according  to  eponvms  shows  that  there  was  already  a provincial 
organization  of  an  advanced  order. 

Among  the  personal  names  in  the  Cappadocian  tablets  there  are 
some  that  have  been  recognized  as  Hittite  or  non-Semitic;  but 
most  of  them  are  West  Semitic  or  Amorite.  The  deities  that 
figure  prominently  in  the  names  are  Amurru,  Ashir  (or  Ashur), 
Ashirta,  Anu,  Adad,  Shamash,  etc.  Not  only  do  the  deities  show 
that  the  people  are  Amorite,  but  also  the  elements  with  which  the 
gods’  names  are  compounded.  Not  a few  of  these  have  been  Baby- 
Ionized,  owing  to  the  use  of  that  language  and  script,  but  the  mass 
of  them  clearly  show  their  Amorite  origin. 

To  what  extent  Western  Semites  moved  into  Asia  Minor  is  not 
known.  It  would  seem  that  the  mines  in  the  vicinity  of  Kara  Eyuk 
would  have  been  as  attractive  to  them  as  to  others.  Whence  came 
the  cultural  elements  which  these  people  had  in  common  with 
Assyrians  is  a question.  Probably  if  we  had  more  knowledge  of 
the  early  history  of  the  intermediate  country,  prior  to  the  occupa- 
tion of  the  Mitanni  people,  we  would  have  light  on  this  problem, 
which  for  reasons  given  awaits  solution. 


XIV 

EGYPT  AND  AMURRU 


Egyptian  scholars  agree  that  there  was  a Semitic  element  that 
vigorously  asserted  itself  in  the  beginnings  of  Egyptian  civiliza- 
tion. The  language  of  Egypt  lexicographically  and  grammatically 
shows  this.  Also  craniological  research  has  shown  that  the  north- 
ern Egyptian  in  the  early  period,  in  contrast  with  the  southern, 
shows  what  is  called  a decidedly  Semitic  or  Semite-Libyan  type, 
the  same  as  found  on  a First  Dynasty  representation  of  a Bedouin 
from  the  First  Cataract.  The  introduction  of  sun-worship  is  also 
credited  to  this  Semitic  element,  because  it  is  generally  supposed 
to  have  emanated  from  Western  Asia. 

It  is  recognized  that  during  the  dark  period  of  several  centuries 
from  about  2350  B.  C.,  when  Memphis  was  given  up  as  the  capital, 
and  the  kingdom  was  split  up  into  petty  principalities  as  in  pre- 
historic times,  many  Semitic  loan  words  were  introduced.1  It  is 
to  be  noted  that  it  was  during  this  very  period  that  the  Amorites 
invaded  Babylonia  and  established  the  dynasties  of  Nisin,  Larsa 
and  Babylon.  (See  Chapter  VIII.) 

In  the  first  half  of  the  second  millennium  B.  C.,  an  Asiatic  people 
called  the  Hyksos  completely  dominated  Egypt  for  a century,  or, 
as  some  hold,  a much  longer  time.  Contemporaries  called  them 
“Asiatics”  or  “barbarians.”  The  late  traditions  of  Manetlio 
call  them  Arabians  and  Phoenicians,  while  Josephus,  in  his  dia- 
tribe against  Apion,  calls  them  Hebrews.  When  Ahmose  I (1580- 
1557  B.  C.)  captured  Avaris  in  the  eastern  part  of  the  Delta,  he 
drove  them  northward  into  Amurru.  He  even  pursued  them  as 
far  as  the  land  Zalii  (Phoenicia).  It  was  not  until  more  than  half 
a century  later  that  Thutmose  III  was  able  to  break  up  finally  the 

1 Bondi  Dem  Hebraisch-phonezischen  Sprachzweige  angehorige  Lehn- 
ivdrter  in  hieroglyphischen  und  hieratischen  Texten;  also  Burchardt,  Alt- 
kanaandischen  Fremdworte  und  Eigenncnnen  im  Aegytischen. 

(138) 


XIV.  EGYPT  AND  AMURBU. 


139 


coalition  of  the  Amorite  kingdoms,  which  had  their  centre  at 
Kadesh  on  the  Orontes. 

Besides  three  rulers  of  the  Hyksos  who  bore  the  name  Apophis, 
three  others  are  known,  Khian,  Khen-zer  and  Jacob-hur  or 
Jacob-el.2  The  last  mentioned  is  Semitic,  and  perhaps  also  one 
or  two  of  the  others.  Prof.  J.  H.  Breasted  thinks  that  it  is  not 
impossible  that  some  chief  of  the  Jacob-tribes  of  Israel  for  a 
time  gained  the  leadership  in  this  obscure  age,  and  that  such  an 
incident  would  account  surprisingly  well  for  the  entrance  of  these 
tribes  into  Egypt.  This,  in  his  judgment,  would  make  the  Hebrews 
in  Egypt  a part  of  the  Bedouin  allies  of  the  Kadesh  or  Hyksos 
empire  (HE  p.  220). 

Prof.  W.  M.  Muller,  in  his  recent  work  on  Egyptian  mythology, 
informs  us  that  a very  considerable  part  of  Egyptian  religious 
thought  was  derived  from  or  was  influenced  by  the  mythology  of 
Asia.  He  thinks  it  must  be  assumed  that  at  On-Heliopolis,  the 
earliest  centre  of  Egyptian  religion,  which  was  situated  at  the 
entrance  of  the  caravan  route  from  the  east,  there  was  a constant 
interchange  of  ideas  in  the  most  remote  periods.  An  illustration 
of  this  is  to  be  found  in  the  Semitic  myth  of  the  conflict  between 
Marduk  and  Tiamat,  the  god  of  light  and  the  primeval  monster  of 
the  abyss,  which  reached  Egypt  after  2500  B.  C.,  where  it  gave  rise 
to  the  story  of  the  gigantic  serpent  Apop  the  enemy  of 

the  sun-god.  Muller  says  that  only  faint  traces  of  the  recreation 
of  the  world  from  the  carcass  of  the  abysmal  dragon  are  found,  but 
other  ideas  bearing  on  the  conflict  with  the  monster  recur  in  many 
variants  (EM  104  ff.).  The  introduction  of  this  myth  into  Egypt 
in  this  early  period,  prior  to  the  time  any  influence  from  Babylonia 
and  Assyria  had  been  felt,  and  nearly  two  millenniums  earlier  than 
it  can  be  shown  that  the  Assyrians  had  made  use  of  it,  is  a most 
interesting  substantiation  of  the  position  taken  by  the  writer  on 
its  Amorite  origin  and  especially  since  it  only  appeared,  as  far  as 
is  known,  in  Assyria  in  the  time  of  Ashurbanipal  (Amurru  44  ft.). 

In  the  more  primitive  stages  of  Egyptian  civilization,  when 
ancient  local  tradition  played  such  an  important  role,  Muller  does 

2 Petrie,  it  should  be  added,  has  proposed  the  identification  of  many  other 
names  of  Hyksos  rulers. 


140 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  THE  AMORITES. 


not  think  the  borrowings  consisted  in  more  than  the  religious 
motifs ; at  least  the  actual  names  of  gods  in  this  period  do  not 
seem  to  have  been  generally  appropriated.  An  early  exception, 
however,  was  Ba‘alath,  the  goddess  of  Byblos  in  Phoenicia,  who 
became  known  and  venerated  in  Egypt  soon  after  2000  B.  C.,  when 
she  was  identified  with  Hat-hor  (see  EM  p.  154).  It  seems  to 
the  present  writer  that  perhaps  Orion,  whose  name  appears  to  be  a 
formation  from  Urn  on  an,  like  Shimshon,  is  also  an  exception. 
He  was  early  brought  to  Egypt,  where  he  was  the  “hero  of  the 
sky,”  and  identified  with  the  sun-god  Horus,  and  associated  also 
with  Osiris.  Doctor  H.  F.  Lutz  proposes  that  this  deity  may  also 
prove  an  exception ; Osiris,  he  thinks,  is  of  West  Semitic  or  Amorite 
origin ; and  was  probably  also  borrowed  by  the  Sumerians  or  early 
Babylonians.  Among  the  reasons  given  by  Lutz  is  the  comparison 
of  Osiris’  epithet  Usr  wnn  nfrw  “Osiris  the  good  Being”  with 
the  Sumerian  or  Babylonian  Asarludug  (often  read  Silig-lu-sar ) 
which  has  the  same  meaning ; and  also  because  of  the  connections 
between  the  Osirian  mythology  and  the  Amorite  Tammuz-Adonis 
myth  which  was  introduced  in  Egypt  as  early  as  the  Pyramid  texts, 
3000  B.  C.,  or  earlier.  Here  should  be  added  also  the  fact  that 
the  Pyramid  texts  narrate  how  after  Osiris  was  murdered  by  Set, 
a part  of  his  body  was  washed  ashore  in  a great  chest  at  Nedyt, 
whither  Isis  his  wife  journeyed  to  reclaim  it.  Plutarch’s  narra- 
tive of  the  myth  makes  Byblos  the  place  where  his  body  was  found. 
Breasted  thinks  this  may  be  Nedyt,  although  it  was  later  localized 
at  Abvdos.  If,  however,  Byblos  was  introduced  into  the  myth,  this 
occurred  before  the  thirteenth  century  B.  C.3  The  parallel  between 
the  Babylonian  Tammuz  and  the  Egyptian  Osiris  has  been  pointed 
out  by  Baudissin  (Adonis  and  Eslimun  1911),  and  others.  Barton 
maintains  that  Osiris  and  Tammuz  are  independent  survivals  and 
manifestations  of  a primitive  cult  once  common  to-  both  Hamites 
and  Semites,  but  originally  Osiris  and  Isis  were  Hamitic,  while 
Tammuz  and  Ishtar  had  their  origin  in  Arabia  ( JAOS  25  213  ft.). 
In  the  light  of  all  that  is  known,  however,  there  seems  little  reason 
for  doubting  that  Tammuz  and  Ishtar  are  Amorite ; and  it  is  not 

•"  Development  of  Religious  Thought  in  Ancient  Egypt,  p.  26. 


XIV.  EGYPT  AND  AMTJRRU. 


141 


impossible  that  the  Asiatic  connections  of  Osiris  and  Isis,  that  have 
been  suggested,  may  also  prove  correct. 

Following  the  Hyksos  occupation  of  Egypt,  or  after  1600  B.  C., 
Muller  says  the  worship  of  Asiatic  deities  became  fashionable  in 
Egypt,  being  propagated  by  many  immigrants,  mercenaries,  mer- 
chants, etc.,  from  Syria.  Ba‘al  is  described  as  the  god  of  thunder, 
dwelling  on  mountains,  or  in  the  sky,  and  terrible  in  battle.  Since 
Ba‘al  means  simply  “lord”  and  is  a generic  title  of  deities  in 
Palestine,  the  kind  of  a god  referred  to  was  probably  one  like 
Amurru  or  Adad.  Other  gods  imported  from  the  Amorite  land 
were  Resheph  or  Reshpu,  who  is  once  called  Reslipu-Sharamana, 
a syncretistic  formation  which  combines  the  names  of  Reshpu  with 
another  Amorite  god,  Shalman  or  Shalmu;  Astarte  (Ashirta), 
“the  mistress  of  heaven,”  whose  chief  temple  was  at  Memphis, 
but  who  was  also  worshipped  at  Ramses  and  elsewhere;  Qedesh, 
pictured,  like  the  nude  goddess  of  Babylonia,  standing  on  a lion 
and  holding  in  one  hand  a serpent,  and  in  the  other,  flowers ; Asit, 
probably  another  form  of  Astarte ; Anat,  who  like  Astarte  is  war- 
like and  sensual ; and  a few  other  goddesses  not  so  frequently  men- 
tioned, namely  Atum,  probably  the  consort  of  the  god  of  Edom, 
Nukara  or  Nugara  the  Amorite  Nikkal  (Nin-gal),  Amait,  etc.  (EM 
153  ft.). 

The  earliest  occurrences  of  the  name  Amurru  (which  is  written 
’mwr,  ’mwr’  and  ’mr’)  are  in  the  inscriptions  of  Ramses  II  (1292- 
1225)  of  the  Nineteenth  Dynasty.  In  the  early  period  they  called 
the  country  along  the  Mediterranean  Retenu,  which  may  be  related 
in  some  way  to  the  name  Tidnu  given  the  land  by  the  early  Baby- 
lonians. The  country  east  of  the  Orontes,  extending  to  or  beyond 
the  Euphrates,  was  called  Naharin. 

Retenu  with  its  fenced  cities  was  looked  upon  by  the  Egyptians 
as  well  inhabited,  and  civilized,  but  its  people  they  regarded  as  vile. 
Thutmose  III  after  making  a peaceful  tour  of  inspection  through 
Upper  Retenu  had  a long  series  of  reliefs  made,  representing  the 
fauna  and  flora  of  what  he  called  “God’s  land.”  The  inscriptions 
mention  commerce  and  booty  or  tribute  as  coming  from  Retenu  in 
the  shape  of  gold,  silver,  lead,  copper,  chariots  wrought  with  gold, 
malachite,  feldspar,  precious  stones,  colors,  incense,  myrrh,  cedar, 


142 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  THE  AMORITES. 


ivory  and  other  woods,  cattle,  etc.  The  ancient  records  of  Egypt 
certainly  attest  the  great  wealth  of  this  land. 

The  references  to  cities  of  Amurru  are  found  in  the  inscriptions 
of  the  second  millennium.4  How  many  of  these  cities  existed  in 
the  third  and  fourth  millennium  B.  C.  cannot  be  determined. 
There  are  reasons  for  believing  that  one  at  least  figured  quite 
prominently  in  the  earliest  period  of  Egyptian  history.  The  ref- 
erence made  above  to  Byblos  in  connection  with  the  Pyramid  texts 
(ca.  3000  B.  C.),  or  the  recognition  that  city  received  as  early  as 
2000  B.  C.  in  having  her  Ba‘alath  venerated  in  Egypt  (Muller  EM 
154),  would  alone  be  suggestive  of  its  importance  as  a great  city, 
and  probably  also  a very  ancient  one.  Shechem,  it  should  also  be 
added,  is  mentioned  in  connection  with  an  Egyptian  campaign  in 
the  Twelfth  Dynasty. 

The  unwarlike  attitude  of  the  Egyptians,  prior  to  the  aggression 
of  the  Semites,  is  responsible  for  the  few  references  to  the  Amorite 
land  in  the  early  period.  Few  and  brief  as  they  are,  they  furnish 
us  with  most  valuable  glimpses  of  the  civilization  that  existed  in 
that  land,  which  we  have  reasons  for  believing  had  a great  anti- 
quity. The  fuller  references  occur  in  the  later  period;  but  even 
these  enable  us  to  picture  the  life  and  activity  that  must  have 
pulsated  in  this  region  in  the  earlier  millenniums. 

Snefru  of  the  Third  Dynasty,  at  the  beginning  of  the  third  millen- 
nium B.  C.,  mentions  bringing  forty  ships  filled  with  cedar  wood 
from  Lebanon.  This  is  the  earliest  naval  expedition  on  the  open 
sea  that  is  known  ( BAR  I,  146). 

Sahure  (Fifth  Dynasty)  about  2743-2731°  dispatched  a fleet 
against  the  Phoenician  coast.  A relief  discovered  at  Abushir 

4 These  have  been  collected  and  discussed  in  the  well  known  work  by 
Muller,  Asien  unci  Europe.  Cf.  also  Burehardt,  AWcanaanaischen  Fremd- 
worte,  and  Patou,  Egyptian  Records  of  Travel  in  Western  Asia. 

e The  writer  is  not  entitled  to  independent  judgment  as  regards  Egyp- 
tian chronology.  The  dates  used  are  taken  from  Breasted ’s  History  of 
Egypt , which  is  in  accord  with  the  Berlin  school.  These  are  much  shorter 
than  those  of  Petrie  and  other  Egyptologists  who  on  account  of  certain 
evidences,  some  of  which  were  known  and  believed  by  the  Egyptians 
themselves,  hold  that  the  beginnings  of  Egyptian  civilization  were  much 
earlier. 


XIV.  EGYPT  AND  AMTJRRU. 


143 


shows  four  of  his  ships  filled  with  Semitic  prisoners  from  the 
Phoenician  coast  cities.  This  is  the  earliest  known  representation 
of  sea-going  ships,  and  the  earliest  picture  of  Amorites  who  are 
clearly  distinguishable  from  the  Egyptian  sailors.7 

Uni,  of  the  Sixth  Dynasty,  about  two  centuries  later,  in  the 
reign  of  Pepi  I (2590-2570  B.  C.),  had  been  sent  five  times  against 
the  “sand-dwellers”  of  Southern  Palestine.  In  a sixth  expedi- 
tion he  crossed  over  in  troop  ships  to  the  back  of  the  height  of  the 
ridge  on  the  north  of  the  “sand-dwellers.”  When  his  army 
reached  the  highway,  he  smote  all  the  revolters.  This  is  the  first 
known  Egyptian  invasion  of  Palestine.  ( BAR  I,  311  ff.) 

The  tale  of  Sinuhe,  the  Egyptian,  which  relates  his  adventures 
in  the  time  of  Sesostris  I (1980-1935  B.  C.),  throws  most  valuable 
light  upon  Palestine  in  the  twentieth  century.  This  nobleman  of 
high  rank  had  accompanied  the  young  coregent  Sesostris  on  a suc- 
cessful campaign  against  the  Libyans,  when  the  news  of  the  death 
of  the  aged  king  Amenemliet  I reached  the  camp.  Without  any 
announcement,  Sesostris  hurried  secretly  hack  to  the  capital,  but 
Sinuhe,  who  accidentally  overheard  the  message,  apparently  for 
political  reasons,  fled  eastward  across  the  Delta  into  the  desert. 
On  arriving  at  the  frontier  fortress  he  eluded  the  watches  on  the 
wall.  After  wandering  many  days  in  the  wilderness,  and  suf- 
fering greatly  from  thirst,  he  was  finally  succored  by  an  Amorite 
who  had  been  in  Egypt  and  who  recognized  him.  He  took  him  to 
his  people.  Later  he  was  sent  from  one  land  to  another  until 
he  came  to  Byblos.  He  finally  reached  Qedem  where  he  spent  a 
year  and  a half.  Then  Ammi-enshi,  the  sheik  of  Upper  Tenu  (i.  e. 
Retenu),  brought  him  forth,  saying:  “Happy  art  thou  with  me; 
thou  hearest  the  speech  of  Egypt,”  for  Sinuhe  was  known  to  the 
Egyptians  who  were  with  him. 

He  entered  the  service  of  the  Amorite  chieftain,  became  the  tutor 
of  his  children,  married  his  eldest  daughter,  and  was  allowed  to 
select  from  the  choicest  of  his  lands.  The  goodly  land  named  Yaa 
yielded  figs  and  vines.  “More  plentiful  than  water  was  its  wine, 
copious  was  its  honey,  plenteous  its  oil.  All  fruits  were  upon  its 
trees.  Barley  was  there  and  spelt;  without  end  all  cattle.”  He 

7 Burcliardt.,  Grabdenkmal  des  Konigs  Sahure,  Yol.  II. 


144 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  THE  AMORITES. 


was  appointed  sheik  of  the  tribe.  His  children  became  the  mighty 
men  of  his  tribe.  His  hospitality  and  his  consideration  for  cara- 
vans were  such  that  he  boasted  of  them.  In  his  old  age  longing  to 
see  his  native  land,  and  be  embalmed  after  death,  he  sent  a messen- 
ger with  a petition  praying  the  Pharaoh  to  forgive  him  and  allow 
him  to  return.  On  receiving  a gracious  rescript,  he  handed  over 
his  property  to  his  children  and  set  out  for  Egypt,  where  he  was 
reinstated  in  high  favor. 

This  romance  which  doubtless  gives  a true  picture  of  life  in 
Retenu,  i.  e.,  northern  Amurru,  shows  what  a fertile,  prosperous 
and  delightful  land  it  was  to  live  in. 

In  the  time  of  Sesostris  III  (1887-1849  B.  C.)  of  the  Twelfth 
Dynasty,  Sebek-khu,  his  commandant,  on  a marauding  expedition, 
pillaged  a place  or  district  called  Sekmen  in  Retenu.  This  is  the 
first  Egyptian  invasion  of  northern  Amurru  of  which  there  is  a 
record.  It  may  have  been  prompted  by  the  aggressive  attitude  of 
the  Amorites,  to  which  power  Egypt  a little  later  succumbed  ( BAR 
I 680  f.). 

A very  important  mural  painting  was  found  in  a tomb  of  a gov- 
ernor of  Sesostris  III,  named  Khnum-hotep,  which  throws  consid- 
erable light  upon  the  land  of  Amurru  in  this  era.  It  depicts  the 
visit  of  thirty-seven  men,  women  and  children,  who  are  Semitic 
Asiatics,  called  ’Amu.  Generally  the  Egyptians  despised  the  ’Amu, 
which  is  the  usual  designation  for  the  dwellers  of  Palestine.  The 
’Amu  are  headed  by  the  chief  of  the  highlands,  Abesha,  who  is 
depicted  presenting  a fine  wild  goat.  A kilted  attendant  leads  an 
antelope.  The  people  are  all  richly  dressed;  the  women  besides 
wearing  sandals  are  depicted  with  socks.  One  man  is  playing 
upon  a lyre.  Their  possessions  are  tied  to  the  backs  of  asses. 
The  scene  presents  a picture  of  a highly  civilized  people,  the  equiv- 
alent it  would  seem  of  that  which  Egypt  possessed,  at  least  from 
their  appearance.  The  inscription  reads:  “The  arrival,  bringing 
eye  paint,  which  thirty-seven  Asiatics  ( ’Amu)  bring  to  him.  Their 
leader  is  Sheik  of  the  hill-country,  Abesha”  (BAR  I,  p.  281).  This 
name  is  the  same  as  the  Hebrew  Abshai. 

Ahmose  I (1580-1557  B.  C.),  in  recording  the  siege  of  the  city 
Hatwaret  (Avaris)  and  its  capture,  after  which  he  pursued  the 
Hyksos  into  Asia  to  the  city' Sharuhen  (Josh.  19:  6),  furnishes  us 


XIV.  EGYPT  AND  AMUKBTJ. 


145 


with  the  first  glimpse  of  what  took  place  following  the  Asiatic  rule 
of  the  Hyksos,  concerning  which  unfortunately  there  is  such  a pau- 
city of  data.  According  to  Manetho  the  Hyksos  made  their  last 
stand  at  Avaris  before  being  driven  out  of  Egypt.  Sharuhen  fell 
after  a siege  of  six  years.  It  is  thought,  according  to  a record  of 
Ahmose-Pen-Nekhbet,  that  Ahmose  I then  pushed  northward  into 
Syria,  and  invaded  Zahi  ( BAR  II,  1 ff.). 

Thutmose  I,  about  1530  B.  C.,  invaded  Naharin  as  far  as  the 
Euphrates,  slaughtering  his  foe,  and  taking  numberless  prisoners. 
On  the  west  bank  of  the  Euphrates  he  set  up  his  boundary  tablet, 
which  fact  is  ascertained  from  the  inscription  of  his  son  Thutmose 
III  (BAR  II,  81  f.). 

Thutmose  II,  about  1490  B.  C.,  conducted  a campaign  in  “Retenu 
the  Upper,”  as  far  probably  as  Niy  on  the  Euphrates  ( BAR  II, 
125). 

Following  a period  of  inactivity  on  the  part  of  Egypt,  the  king 
of  Kadesli  succeeded  in  stirring  up  all  the  allied  kingdoms  of  Zahi, 
including  Mitanni  east  of  the  Euphrates.  Thutmose  III  (1479- 
1447  B.  C.)  at  the  head  of  his  army  moved  upon  the  strong  fortress 
at  Megiddo  in  the  plain  of  Esdraelon  which  guarded  the  road 
between  the  Lebanons.  Here  the  coalition  was  defeated,  after 
which  Thutmose  marched  northward  and  captured  the  cities 
Yenoam,  Nuges  and  Herenkern,  which  commanded  the  thorough- 
fare between  the  Lebanons.  These  cities  he  dedicated  to  Anion. 

The  record  of  the  spoil  taken  at  Megiddo  by  Thutmose  III  throws 
interesting  light  upon  the  wealth  of  that  district.  He  records  hav- 
ing received  2,041  mares,  191  foals,  6 stallions,  924  chariots,  200 
suits  of  armor,  502  bows,  1,929  large  cattle,  2,000  small  cattle,  and 
20,500  white  small  cattle,  perhaps  goats.  Although  the  people 
living  in  the  vicinity  of  Megiddo  from  whom  this  loot  was  taken 
can  scarcely  be  classed  as  nomads,  they  must  have  possessed  great 
wealth  in  herds  and  flocks. 

On  his  second  campaign  through  Palestine  and  southern  Syria, 
he  received  submissive  kings  and  gathered  tribute.  Even  Assyria 
sent  gifts.  The  reliefs  of  his  third  campaign,  as  mentioned  above, 
depict  the  flora  and  fauna  of  Syria,  which  he  brought  back.  Annals 
for  his  fourth  campaign  are  wanting.  On  his  fifth,  he  moved 
against  the  northern  coastal  cities.  He  captured  Arvad,  seized 


146 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  THE  AMORITES. 


some  Phoenician  ships,  and  returned  by  water.  Having  gained 
the  south  country  and  the  coast  on  his  sixth  expedition,  he  landed 
his  army  at  Simyra  by  the  mouth  of  the  Eleutheros,  and  marched 
upon  Ivadesh.  This  fortified  city  in  the  north  end  of  the  valley 
lay  on  the  west  side  of  the  Orontes,  and  was  surrounded  by  water. 
After  a siege  of  several  months  this  formidable  city  was  captured. 
The  balance  of  this  season  and  his  seventh  campaign  he  spent  in 
chastizing  Arvad  and  Simyra  again,  and  engaged  from  the  coast 
towns  a liberal  supply  of  provisions  for  the  campaigns  he  expected 
to  conduct  in  Naharin,  the  district  beyond  Ivadesh. 

On  his  eighth  campaign,  two  years  later,  he  captured  Qatna  and 
Senzar.  Aleppo  must  also  have  fallen,  for  he  pushed  into  Naharin 
to  the  “Height  of  Man,”  where  he  fought  a great  battle.  Many 
towns  of  Naharin  were  captured  and  laid  waste.  He  then  turned 
towards  Carchemish,  where  he  fought  his  foe,  perhaps  the  king  of 
Mitanni ; after  which  he  crossed  the  Euphrates  into  that  land,  and 
set  up  his  boundary  tablet.  On  his  return  to  the  west  shore  of  the 
river  he  found  the  tablet  of  his  father,  Thutmose  I,  alongside  of 
which  he  placed  his  own.  The  capture  of  the  city  of  Niy,  a little 
to  the  south  on  the  Euphrates,  completed  his  work,  after  which 
the  princes  of  Naharin  brought  tribute  to  his  camp.  Babylon,  as 
well  as  the  Hittites,  also  sent  gifts  at  this  time.  Following  his 
achievements  of  the  ten  years,  he  erected  at  Karnak  two  enormous 
obelisks  which  he  inscribed  ‘ ‘ Thutmose  who  crossed  the  great  bend 
of  Naharin  (Euphrates)  with  might  and  with  victory  at  the  head 
of  his  army.  ’ ’ One  of  the  pair  now  stands  in  Constantinople,  while 
the  other  has  disappeared. 

The  following  year  found  Thutmose  III  again  in  Zahi,  putting- 
down  a revolt.  Two  years  later  at  Araina,  perhaps  in  the  lower 
Orontes  valley,  he  defeated  another  coalition  formed  by  his  Naharin 
foe.  Several  years  after  this  he  again  chastised  South  Lebanon; 
at  which  time  Cyprus,  Arrapahitis  and  the  Hittites  paid  tribute. 
His  seventh  and  last  campaign  was  occasioned  by  Ivadesh  inciting 
his  allies  of  Naharin  and  especially  the  king  of  Tunip  to  revolt, 
which  resulted  in  the  destruction  of  that  city  and  the  subjugation 
of  the  country  ( BAR  II,  391  ff.). 

The  most  important  record  bequeathed  to  us  by  Thutmose  III 
was  inscribed  on  one  of  the  pylons  of  Karnak,  containing  his 


XIV.  EGYPT  AND  AMURRU. 


147 


annals,  in  which  long  lists  of  peoples  and  Amorite  towns  are  found. 
The  striking  fact  is  that  in  spite  of  all  the  vicissitudes  which  this 
land  suffered  through  conquests  and  migrations,  many  of  these 
names  were  in  use  in  late  Biblical  times,  and  remain  unchanged  at 
the  present  time.  This  fact,  considered  in  connection  with  the 
knowledge  that  some  cities  are  known  in  the  early  period,  suggests 
the  idea  of  a much  greater  antiquity  for  the  civilization  than  is 
generally  recognized. 

Amenhotep  II  (1448-1420  B.  C.),  the  son  of  Thutmose  III,  reigned 
but  one  year,  when  all  Naharin  and  Mitanni  revolted.  Early  in 
May  of  the  following  year  he  fought  at  Shemesh-Edom  against  the 
princes  of  Lebanon,  whom  he  defeated.  A little  later,  after  a skir- 
mish near  the  Orontes,  he  reached  Niy,  which  city  acclaimed  him 
its  sovereign.  He  punished  the  city  of  Ikathi,  and  at  Tikhsi  he 
captured  seven  princes  of  that  district,  whom  he  hanged  on  reach- 
ing Egypt.  As  his  father  and  grandfather  had  done,  he  set  up  a 
memorial  tablet  somewhere  in  Naharin  marking  his  northern 
boundary.  In  the  vicinity  of  Napata  he  set  up  a stele  marking  his 
southern  boundary.  He  drove  before  him  in  triumphal  procession, 
as  he  proceeded  to  Memphis,  550  nobles,  240  wives,  golden  vessels 
to  the  weight  of  1660  pounds,  copper,  nearly  100,000  pounds,  210 
horses  and  300  chariots  ( BAR  II,  780  ff.). 

Thutmose  IV  (1420-1411  B.  C.)  apparently  maintained  the 
boundaries  of  the  Asiatic  empire  established  by  his  father.  Men- 
tion is  made  of  Naharin,  against  which  one  campaign  was  con- 
ducted. He  refers  to  cutting  cedars  in  Retenu,  and  proclaimed 
himself  “conqueror  of  Syria. ” His  father  had  secured  for  him  in 
marriage  the  daughter  of  Artatama,  king  of  Mitanni,  in  order  to 
strengthen  his  alliance  with  that  country.  She  was  named  Mute- 
muya  in  Egypt;  and  became  the  mother  of  the  successor  to  the 
throne  ( BAR  II,  820  f.). 

Amenhotep  III  (1411-1375  B.  C.)  was  the  last  of  the  great 
emperors.  He  married  an  untitled  woman  named  Tiy,  who  occu- 
pied a position  of  great  influence  during  the  reign.  Circumstances 
were  such  that  he  was  not  obliged  to  carry  on  warfare  with 
Amurru,  for  he  had  little  occasion  for  anxiety  from  his  subjects. 
He  enjoyed  unchallenged  supremacy  throughout  Syria,  Babylonia, 
Assyria,  Mitanni,  and  Alashia,  with  whose  rulers  he  maintained 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  THE  AMORITES. 


118 

the  friendliest  of  relations.  We  learn  this,  not  from  his  monu- 
mental records,  which  throw  little  or  no  light  upon  the  situation, 
but  from  the  so-called  Amarna  Letters  which  contain  official  corre- 
spondence between  this  ruler  and  his  successor,  on  the  one  hand, 
and  on  the  other  the  rulers  of  the  nations  referred  to.  It  was  only 
in  the  latter  days  of  his  long  reign  that  trouble  appeared  in  Syria. 
Hittites  from  Cappadocia  invaded  Mitanni,  and  the  provinces  of 
Egypt  on  the  lower  Orontes,  and  began  the  absorption  of  Syria. 
Vassal  Amorite  princes  were  in  the  conspiracy,  and  Ubi,  the  region 
of  Damascus,  was  threatened.  The  Hittites  and  the  Habiri,  their 
allies,  mercenaries  or  subjects,  began  to  invade  the  land. 

During  the  reign  of  Amenliotep  IV  (1375-1358  B.  C.),  the  heret- 
ical king  who  assumed  the  name  of  Ihnaton,  the  dissolution  of  the 
Asiatic  empire  took  place,  and  it  was  finally  absorbed  by  the 
Hittites.  On  his  accession  Dushratta  of  Mitanni  and  Burra-Buri- 
asli  of  Babylon  sent  greetings  and  sought  friendly  relations  with 
the  Pharaoh.  Seplel  (written  Shubbiluliuma  in  cuneiform),  king 
of  the  Hittites,  did  the  same  and  sent  gifts,  but  apparently  Amen- 
hotep  had  little  desire  of  maintaining  the  old  relations  with  Seplel, 
for  the  Hittites  had  already  begun  to  encroach  upon  his  land. 
With  the  assistance  of  the  unfaithful  vassal  Abdi-Ashirta  and  his 
son  Aziru,  who  headed  an  Amorite  kingdom  on  the  upper  Orontes, 
and  Itakama  who  had  taken  Kadesh,  the  Hittites,  with  the  aid  of 
the  Habiri,  steadily  advanced  southward.  The  faithful  vassals 
of  the  Pharaoh  one  after  another  succumbed  until  the  entire  land 
was  lost  to  Egypt  (see  also  Chapter  XII).  Besides  the  Amarna 
letters,  a single  Egyptian  monument  of  this  reign  gives  instruc- 
tions regarding  the  disposition  of  Asiatics  whose  towns  had  been 
plundered  and  destroyed,  and  who  had  come  to  settle  in  Egypt 
(BAR  III,  10  f.). 

Seti  I (1313-1292),  after  the  lapse  of  half  a century,  records  his 
chastisement  of  the  Bedouin  in  southern  Palestine,  who  were  mak- 
ing common  cause  against  the  Palestinians.  After  this  he  cap- 
tured towns  in  the  plain  of  Esdraelon,  and  erected  a victory  tablet 
in  the  Hauran ; at  which  time  the  princes  of  the  district  came  to 
him  and  offered  their  allegiance.  Two  years  later  he  is  found 
storming  a walled  city  in  Galilee  called  Kadesh,  which  had  been 
founded  by  the  Amorites  Abdi-Ashirta  and  Aziru ; and  later  he 


XIV.  EGYPT  AND  AMURKU. 


149 


pushed  northward  against  Merasar  (Mursili),  son  of  Seplel,  king 
of  the  Hittites,  whom  he  met  in  the  Orontes  valley.  It  does  not 
seem  that  any  important  decision  was  gained,  except  that  the  move- 
ment of  Hittites  southward  was  checked.  Later  he  made  a treaty 
of  peace  with  Metella  (Mutallu),  who  had  succeeded  his  father 
Merasar  ( BAR  III,  82  ff.).  A few  miles  south  of  Tell  Ashtarah 
in  Bashan  a stele  has  been  found  in  which  Seti  I is  represented 
offering  a libation  to  Amon. 

Ramses  II  (1292-1225  B.  C.),  about  twenty  years  after  the 
attempt  of  Seti  I to  wrest  the  land  from  the  Hittites,  made  his  first 
move  against  Metella.  This  occurred  in  his  fourth  year,  when  he 
seized  Kadesh  on  the  Orontes.  He  left  evidence  of  his  activity 
near  Beirut  in  the  shape  of  a stele  cut  into  the  rocks  overlooking 
the  Nahr-el-Kelb  (Dog  River).  Metella  by  the  aid  of  the  kings 
of  Naharin,  Arvad,  Carchemisli,  Kode,  Kadesh,  Nuges,  Ekeretli, 
and  Aleppo,  besides  drawing  upon  his  allies  in  Asia  Minor,  amassed 
a great  army.  The  battle  of  Kadesh  which  followed  is  the  first 
in  history  whose  strategy  can  be  studied.  The  Hittite  king  by  clev- 
erly masking  his  manoeuvres,  flanked  Ramses,  who  was  taken 
unawares.  The  battle  was  undecisive,  yet  Ramses  returned  to 
Egypt  and  celebrated  the  event  as  a triumph.  Several  years  of 
campaigns  followed.  Naharin  was  conquered  as  far  as  Tunip. 
After  about  fifteen  campaigns  the  Hittit'e  king  died,  and  Ramses 
made  peace  and  a treaty  of  alliance  with  Hetasar  (Hattusil),  his 
successor,  which  continued  effective  throughout  his  long  reign 
{BAR  III,  316  ff.). 

Merneptah  (1225-1215  B.  C.)  was  advanced  in  years  when  he  came 
to  the  throne.  Not  long  after  his  ascension  he  discovered  that  the 
northern  Mediterranean  peoples,  called  by  the  Egyptians,  “peoples 
of  the  sea/’  among  whom  were  the  Tlieku  and  Peleset  (Philis- 
tines), together  with  allied  peoples,  were  making  incursions  from 
the  north  and  especially  Asia  Minor ; and  were  plundering  his  ter- 
ritory in  coalition  with  the  Libyans,  who  were  encroaching  upon 
Egypt.  This  movement  resulted  in  the  decline  of  the  Hittite 
power  in  the  north,  with  whom  the  Egyptians  had  no  further  con- 
flict. 

In  a poetic  encomium  celebrating  his  victory  over  the  Libyans, 
without  mentioning  his  allies  from  the  north  Merneptah  makes 


150 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  THE  AMORITES. 


reference  in  the  last  section  to  Israel.  It  reads : ‘ ‘ The  kings  are 
overthrown,  saying  Salam!  Not  one  holds  up  his  head  among  the 
Nine  Bows.  Wasted  is  Tehenu,  Heta  is  pacified;  plundered  is 
Pekanan  (the  Canaan)  with  every  evil;  carried  off  is  Askalon; 
seized  upon  is  Gezer;  Yenoam  is  made  a thing  not  existing;  Israel 
is  desolated,  his  seed  is  not;  Palestine  has  become  a widow  for 
Egypt;  all  lands  are  united,  they  are  pacified;  every  one  that  is 
turbulent  is  hound  by  King  Merneptah,  giving  life  like  Re,  every 
day.  ’ ’ 

In  a letter  from  a frontier  official,  mention  is  made  of  Edomite 
Bedouin  being  allowed  to  live  near  Pithom  (cf.  Gen.  47:  1-12),  in 
order  to  pasture  their  cattle  ( BAR  III,  623  ff.). 

Ramses  III  (1198-1167  B.  C.)  records  in  relief,  scenes  of  his  inva- 
sion of  Northern  Syria  and  Asia  Minor.  It  shows  him  storming 
five  strong  cities,  one  of  which  is  called  “the  city  of  Amor,” 
another  presumably  is  Kadesh  surrounded  by  water  ( BAR  IV, 
59  if.). 

Sheshonk  (945-924  B.  C.)  is  the  first  Pharaoh  mentioned  by  name 
in  the  Old  Testament,  who  in  the  fifth  year  of  Rehohoam  invaded 
Palestine  (1  Kgs.  14:  25).  On  a large  relief  found  at  Karnak  he 
gave  a list  of  between  fifty  and  sixty  names  of  towns  in  Israel  and 
about  one  hundred  in  Judah.  Of  the  total  number  only  about 
seventy-five  are  preserved,  of  which  seventeen  can  be  identified. 
Beth  ‘Anath  in  Galilee  is  the  most  northern  city  recognized;  and 
Arad  in  Judah  the  most  southern  ( BAR  IV,  709  if.). 

A study  of  the  Egyptian  monuments  of  the  early  period  tends 
to  show  that  considerable  influence  was  exerted  from  Amurru, 
where  in  important  centers  a civilization  of  a high  order  existed 
already  in  an  early  age.  It  is  recognized  that  emigrants  poured 
also  into  Babylonia  and  Assyria.  Politically  Amurru  is  not  known 
to  have  come  into  contact  with  Egypt  in  the  early  period;  never- 
theless, it  is  not  impossible,  as  stated  in  a previous  chapter,  that 
one  or  more  of  the  dark  periods  in  Egyptian  history  are  to  be 
explained  as  being  due  to  encroachments  of  the  Amorites,  as  we 
have  definite  proof,  occurred  in  the  history  of  early  Babylonia. 

In  the  period  prior  to  the  Hyksos  rule,  that  is,  before  1700  B.  C., 
there  is  no  evidence  from  the  Egyptian  monuments  to  show  that 


XIV.  EGYPT  AND  AMURRU. 


151 


there  was  any  kind  of  a political  union  of  the  different  principali- 
ties of  Amurru.  This  is  due  to  the  extreme  paucity  of  references 
to  the  country  on  the  monuments.  The  Hyksos  movement  unques- 
tionably must  have  represented  united  activity  on  the  part  of 
Amorite  kingdoms.  Following  their  expulsion,  there  can  be  no 
doubt  but  that  the  Amorite  cities  of  the  Mediterranean  region  were 
leagued  together  in  resisting  the  invasion  and  conquest  of  the  land 
by  Thutmose  III. 

A study  of  the  Egyptian  monuments  of  the  second  millennium, 
without  any  knowledge  from  other  sources,  reveals  a stability  and 
permanency  of  civilization  in  Amurru  that  suggests  a very  long 
period  of  development.  The  stubborn  resistance  offered  the  Egyp- 
tian hosts  by  the  walled  cities,  the  way  their  strength  from  time  to 
time  was  revived,  the  amount  and  character  of  the  booty  taken,  the 
enormous  tribute  received  by  Egypt,  the  knowledge  we  have  of  the 
commerce  carried  on,  besides  many  other  considerations,  tend  to 
confirm  the  idea  that  the  civilization  of  Amurru  had  a great  anti- 
quity ; and  that  back  of  the  earliest  traces  of  it,  there  was  a chain 
or  development  which  covered  many  centuries. 


XV 

AMORITES  IN  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

The  Amorites  are  regarded  in  the  Old  Testament  as  pre-Israelite 
inhabitants  of  Palestine ; where  we  get  the  correct  impression  that 
their  history  largely  belonged  to  the  past.  The  term  Amorite  is 
used  as  having  an  ethnic  signification,  but  it  was  also  used  fre- 
quently in  a collective  or  geographic  sense.  The  Canaanites  lived 
along  the  coast,  and  the  Amorites  in  the  hills  or  high  ground  (Josh. 
5:  1 etc.)  ; but  the  terms  are  frequently  used  synonymously  (Gen. 
18:  22  etc.).  In  some  instances  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  land,  the 
Hittites,  Jebusites,  Hivites,  etc.,  are  designated  as  Amorites  (Josh. 
7 : 7),  even  the  Philistines  (1  Sam.  7 : 14) ; and  in  other  instances 
the  Amorites  are  listed  among  the  different  peoples  of  the  country 
(Josh.  24:  11). 

The  earliest  reference  in  the  Old  Testament  to  the  Amorites  is 
found  in  the  narrative  of  the  Elamitic  campaign  to  Palestine  and 
the  country  to  the  south  of  it.  This  took  place  during  the  short 
period  when  Elam  was  dominant  in  Babylonia,  in  the  latter  part 
of  the  third  millennium  B.  C.  Chedorlaomer  (Ivudur-Lagamar), 
king  of  Elam,  was  accompanied  by  Arioch,  king  of  Ellasar  (Larsa), 
Amraphel  (Hammurabi)  king  of  Sliinar  (Babylon),  and  Tidal 
king  of  Goyyim  (perhaps  Guti),  (Gen.  14:  1).  These  kings  made 
war  with  Bera,  king  of  Sodom,  Birsha,  king  of  Gomorrah,  Sliinab 
king  of  Admail,  Shemeber  king  of  Zeboiim,  and  the  king  of  Bela 
(the  same  is  Zoar).  All  these  joined  together  in  the  vale  of  Sid- 
dim  (the  same  is  the  Salt  Sea).  Chedorlaomer  and  the  kings 
that  were  with  him  smote  the  Rephaim  in  Asliteroth-Karnaim 
(probably  Tell  ‘Ashtara  in  Bashan),  the  Zuzirn  in  Ham,  the  Emim 
in  Shaveh-kiriathaim,  and  the  Horites  in  Mount  Seir,  unto  El-pa- 
ran,  which  is  by  the  Wilderness.  These  kings  returned  and  came 
to  Em-mishpat  (the  same  is  Kadesli)  and  smote  all  the  country  of 
the  Amalekites  and  also  the  Amorites  that  dwelt  in  Hazazon-tamar. 
The  latter  place  is  identified  in  2 Oliron.  20 : 2 with  En-gedi,  which 

(152) 


XV.  AMOEITES  IN  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 


153 


was  situated  in  the  high  cliffs  at  the  mouth  of  the  gorge  of  Wady 
Ghor  running  into  the  Dead  Sea  at  about  the  middle  of  the  west 
bank.  Some  scholars,  however,  identify  it  with  Thamara  between 
Elath  and  Hebron.  Kadesh  has  been  identified  about  fifty  miles 
south  of  Beer-sheba.  When  the  Israelites  came  to  Kadesh-barnea 
it  is  said  that  they  had  reached  unto  the  hill  country  of  the  Amo- 
rites  (Deut.  1:  19,  20).  Sihon’s  Amorite  kingdom  is  said  to  have 
reached  unto  the  Gulf  of  Akabah  (see  below).  This  invasion,  it 
would  seem,  passed  through  the  country  on  the  east  side  of  the 
Jordan  and  the  Dead  Sea,  and  extended  southward.  If  the  identi- 
fication of  Humurtu  with  Gomorrah  should  prove  correct,  the 
Babylonian  army  of  Dungi  at  an  earlier  time  had  also  visited  this 
region.  Certainly  as  stated  above,  the  title  “king  of  the  four 
quarters,”  which  he  acquired,  points  to  activity  in  Amurru. 

The  statement  that  Abram  dwelt  by  the  oaks  of  Mamre,  the  Amo- 
rite, brother  of  Eshcol  and  Aner  (Gen.  14:  13),  refers  to  Amorites 
living  near  Hebron  in  southern  Palestine  (Numb.  13:  23  b). 

“The  land  of  the  Moriah”  whither  Abraham  was  commanded  to 
take  Isaac  and  offer  him  for  a burnt  offering  upon  one  of  the  moun- 
tains, seems  to  refer  to  the  Lebanon  district.  In  his  journey,  “on 
the  third  day  he  lifted  up  his  eyes  and  saw  the  place  afar  off.” 
The  Peshitto  version  reads  “the  land  of  the  Amorites”  instead 
of  “the  land  of  the  Moriah.”  The  Septuagint  translator  not 
understanding  the  text,  used  the  words  “the  highland.”  The 
writer  of  2 Cliron.  3:  1,  who  refers  to  “the  mountain  of  the 
Moriah,”  apparently  having  the  temple  hill  of  Jerusalem  in  mind, 
seems  to  have  based  his  statement  upon  this  passage  after  the  name 
had  been  corrupted.  The  Septuagint  version  here  reads  it  cor- 
rectly “of  the  Amorites.”  The  Hebrew  in  both  instances  has  the 
article,  “the  Moriah.”  If  the  shortened  form  Moriah  had  actu- 
ally been  used  as  well  as  Amoriah,  it  would  be  an  interesting 
parallel  to  the  name  in  cuneiform,  where  the  initial  letter  also  in 
some  instances  has  disappeared  (see  Chapter  VII). 

Isaac  before  dying  informs  Joseph  that  he  had  given  him 
Shechem  which  he  had  taken  from  the  Amorites : “I  have  given  to 
thee  Shechem  above  thy  brethren,  which  I took  out  of  the  hand 
of  the  Amorite  with  my  sword  and  bow”  (Gen.  48:  22).  This  tra- 
dition apparently  alludes  to  the  capture  of  that  city  by  his  sons. 


154 


THE  EMPIBE  OF  THE  AMOBITES. 


There  is  a Jewish  legend  which  tells  of  an  attack  made  by  seven 
Amorite  kings  upon  Jacob  at  Shechem,  and  of  his  victory  over  them 
( Jubilees  34,  1 to  9). 

The  Amorites  in  the  time  of  Moses  continued  to  be  dominant  on 
the  east  side  of  the  Jordan  and  the  Dead  Sea.  The  river  Arnon 
flowing  into  the  Dead  Sea  “was  the  border  of  Moab  between  Moab 
and  the  Amorite”  (Numb.  21:  13).  Silion  king  of  the  Amorites 
refused  to  let  Israel  pass  through  his  border;  and  Israel  smote 
him  and  took  his  land,  from  Arnon  to  Jabbok,  even  unto  the  chil- 
dren of  Ammon.  Israel  dwelt  in  all  the  cities,  in  Heshbon  the  city 
of  Silion,  and  all  the  towns  thereof  (Numb.  21:  21-26).  Jazer, 
another  city  of  the  Amorites  in  this  district,  is  also  mentioned  by 
name  as  captured  (v.  32).  And  Israel  “turned  and  went  up  by 
way. of  Bashan,  where  Og  king  of  Bashan  came  out  against  them.” 
He  also  was  defeated,  and  Israel  possessed  his  land  (w.  33-35). 
Although  Og,  king  of  Bashan,  is  called  a king  of  the  Amorites,  it 
is  said  he  “remained  of  the  remnant  of  the  Repliaim,”  a great 
race  of  that  district. 

The  territory  of  these  “two  Amorite  kings”  is  said  to  have 
extended  from  Aroer  on  the  edge  of  the  valley  of  Arnon  even  unto 
Mount  Sion  (also  called  Sirion  and  Senir,  i.  e.  Hermon),  and  all 
the  Arabah  unto  the  sea  of  the  Arabah  (which  is  the  Gulf  of  Aka- 
bah)  (Deut.  3:  8 ff.  and  4:  47-49).  The  two  kingdoms  therefore 
included  Bashan,  Gilead,  Moab,  and  Edom  to  the  Gulf  of  Akabah, 
a region  of  no  small  extent. 

After  the  Amorites  beyond  the  Jordan  had  been  conquered, 
Israel  crossed  the  Jordan  and  came  to  Jericho,  fought  and  defeated 
the  men  of  Jericho,  the  Amorites,  Perizzites,  Canaanites,  Hittites, 
Girgashites,  Hivites  and  Jebusites  (Josh.  24:  8-11,  15  and  18). 

On  the  west  of  the  Jordan,  Joshua  and  the  inhabitants  of  Gibeon, 
who  are  said  later  in  the  time  of  David  to  be  of  the  remnant  of  the 
Amorites  (2  Sam.  21:  2),  fought  and  defeated  five  Amorite  kings, 
namely  Adoni-zedek  of  Jerusalem,  Hoham  of  Hebron,  Piram  of 
Jarmuth,  Japhia  of  Lachish,  and  Debir  of  Eglon  (Josh.  10:  3 ff.). 
The  older  population  of  Judah  being  called  Amorite  throws  light 
on  the  passage  in  Ezekiel  concerning  Jerusalem:  “the  Amorite 
was  thy  father  and  thy  mother  was  a Hittite”  (Ezek.  16:  3). 


XV.  AMORITES  IN  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 


155 


The  Amorites  also  dwelt  in  Heres,  Aijalon  and  in  Shaalbim,  and 
tried  to  force  the  children  of  Dan  into  the  hill  country,  but  the 
latter  prevailed  and  made  them  tributary  (Judg.  1:  34  ff\). 

While  we  have  knowledge  of  a number  of  petty  principalities  of 
the  Amorites  on  the  west  side  of  the  Jordan  there  is  no  evidence 
of  a kingdom  or  kingdoms  such  as  those  of  Og  and  Sihon  on  the 
east  side.  When  excavations  are  conducted  in  this  region  there 
may  be  discovered  remains  of  a much  earlier  Amorite  civilization 
than  has  yet  been  found  in  Western  Palestine. 

Unfortunately  only  a few  names  borne  by  Amorites  are  men- 
tioned in  the  Old  Testament.  Some  of  these  like  Adoni-zedek, 
Japhia,  Debir  can  be  said  to  be  Semitic,  while  others  remain  unde- 
termined. The  same  can  be  said  of  the  five  kings  mentioned  in  the 
Elamitic  campaign  (see  Chapter  II). 


XVI 

ASSYRIA  AND  AMURRU 

The  country  of  Assyria,  owing-  to  its  proximity  to  Amnrru,  seems 
to  have  been  extensively  influenced  by  that  land.  This  follows 
from  a study  of  the  religion  and  nomenclature  of  the  Assyrian 
inscriptions  both  early  and  late.  Not  only  was  the  country  settled 
by  Amorites,  but  they  kept  pouring  into  it  in  various  periods,  as 
they  did  into  Babylonia,  and  Egypt. 

In  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  excavations  conducted  in  Assyria 
have  not  been  inconsiderable,  little  has  been  found  that  throws  light 
on  the  beginnings  of  the  land’s  history.  The  inscriptions  of  Shal- 
maneser I and  Esarhaddon  furnish  us  with  references  to  an  early 
king  named  Ushpia  (also  written  Aushpia),  the  traditional  builder 
of  E-harsag-kurkurra,  the  temple  of  Ashur;  and  to  Kikia,  who  is 
regarded  as  the  traditional  builder  of  the  wall  of  Ashur  ( Chron . I 
122,  140).  Also  in  a late  chronicle  we  learn  that  Ilu-shuma,  king 
of  Assyria,  marched  against  Su-abu,  who  is  considered  to  be  Sumu- 
abum,  the  founder  of  the  First  Dynasty  of  Babylon  (ibid.  I p.  129). 
The  first  contemporaneous  record  bearing  upon  Assyria  from 
Babylonian  sources  is  a military  despatch  of  Hammurabi,  which 
refers  to  his  troops  and  the  country  of  Assyria  (LIE  III  p.  14), 
which  in  this  period  was  subject  to  Babylon. 

The  earliest  known  references  to  Assyria  in  the  inscriptions 
belonging  to  such  a comparatively  late  period,  the  question  as  to 
the  origin  of  its  civilization  has  frequently  been  touched  upon. 
Heretofore  it  has  been  customary,  with  the  Biblical  tradition  of 
Nimrod,  to  regard  it  as  having  been  an  offshoot  from  Babylonia, 
largely  because  of  the  script  and  language  and  certain  cultural 
elements.1  The  early  inhabitants  of  the  country,  whether  Semitic 
or  non-Semitic,  did  make  use  of  what  we  call  the  Semitic  Babylo- 
nian language,  and  the  Sumero-Akkadian  system  of  writing. 

1 See  Rogers  History  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria  (II  133  ff.). 

(156) 


XVI.  ASSYRIA  AND  AMURRU. 


157 


Moreover  the  Sumerian  temple  names,  the  many  Sumerian  terms 
used  for  religious  rites,  etc.,  point  unmistakably  to  Sumerian  influ- 
ence at  some  previous  time ; but  whether  this  was  by  direct  contact 
with  the  Sumerians  or  indirectly  by  contact  with  the  Semites  who 
lived  in  Eastern  Amurru,  who  had  been  influenced  by  the  Sume- 
rians, or  from  both  sources,  cannot  he  determined. 

The  excavations  conducted  by  the  Deutsche  Orient-Gesellschaft 
at  Kalah-Shergat,  the  site  of  ancient  Ashur,  on  the  Tigris,  yielded 
besides  inscriptions,  the  earliest  known  antiquities  of  that  land. 
In  the  lowest  stratum,  which  was  separated  by  charred  debris 
from  the  one  above,  there  were  found  several  pieces  of  rude  sculp- 
ture which  are  suggestive  of  the  work  of  the  Sumerians,  familiar  to 
us  from  the  excavations  in  Southern  Babylonia.  The  inlaying  of 
the  eyes  with  shell,  the  Sumerian  physiognomy,  the  shorter  head, 
and  the  treatment  of  the  garments,  make  it  reasonable  to  think  that 
prior  to  the  period  when  the  foundations  of  the  temple  of  Ishtar 
at  Ashur  were  laid,  the  people  were  under  the  influences  of  the 
Sumerian  civilization,  which  prevailed  in  Babylonia  at  the  same 
time  (see  King  HB  137  f.).  Whether  the  Assyrians  were  under 
the  influence  of  the  Sumerian  craftsmen  in  their  original  home, 
before  they  settled  Assyria,  is  another  question  that  cannot  he 
determined  at  present. 

In  Amurru  138  ft.,  the  writer  proposed,  after  a consideration  of 
the  use  of  certain  West  Semitic  deities  in  the  early  names  of 
temples  and  individuals,  that  the  early  Assyrian  culture,  with 
which  we  are  familiar,  arose,  or  was  extensively  influenced  by 
migration  from  the  West.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  recent 
publications  of  Johns  and  King  accord  with  this  idea.2  This  is 
also  accepted  by  Luckenbill ; who,  however,  holds  that  the  earliest 
Semites  of  Assyria  were  borne  in  on  what  he  calls  the  first  of  the 
successive  migrations  from  the  desert  of  Arabia  into  the  Euphrates 
Valley,  which  movement  of  Semites  brought  Sargon  and  Naram- 
Sin  ( ca . 2500  B.  C.)  into  Babylonia,  when  supremacy  was  for  the 
first  time  gained  by  them  (see  AJSL  28,  p.  154).  With  this  view 
the  writer  feels  constrained  to  differ  in  every  detail,  as  is  evident 
from  the  results  presented  in  this  work. 

2 Johns  Ancient  Assyria  p.  10 ; King  HB  p.  137. 


158 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  THE  AMORITES. 


It  lias  been  suggested  that  the  two  earliest  known  traditional 
rulers,  Uslipia  and  Ivikia,  were  Hittite-Mitannian  (cf.  Ungnad  BA 
VI  5 p.  13).  If  this  is  correct,  no  other  influence  from  this  quarter 
has  been  pointed  out.  It  is  not  impossible  that  the  Mitanni  people 
had  already  pushed  into  Aram.  It  would  seem  that  these  kings 
lived  prior  to  the  time  of  the  Ur  Dynasty,  for  the  rulers  of  Ur,  who 
bore  the  title  “king  of  the  four  quarters,”  would  hardly  have  per- 
mitted an  encroachment  upon  the  territory  north  of  Akkad.  Since 
Iva(  ?)-sha-Ashir  and  Shalim-ahum  preceded  Ilu-shuma  ( KTA  60), 
who  is  thought  to  have  been  a contemporary  of  Sumu-abu,  founder 
of  the  Amorite  First  Dynasty  of  Babylon,  the  beginning  of  their 
reigns  would  be  near  the  time  the  Amorites  established  themselves 
on  the  thrones  of  Nisin  and  Larsa.3  Probably  there  was  at  least  a 
fresh  ingress  of  Amorites  at  this  time. 

If  the  Semites  who  lived  in  Assyria  prior  to  this  period  were 
Babylonians,  they  have  left  no  traces  of  their  culture  which  can  be 
said  to  be  peculiarly  their  own,  except  the  use  of  the  language  and 
script.  In  an  inscription  found  at  Ashur,  Ashir-nirari  (about  1800 
B.  C.)  calls  himself  “the  builder  of  the  temple  of  dEn-lil-labira.” 
Some  may  incline  to  cite  this  as  an  example  of  influence  from 
Babylonia.  As  stated  below  in  Chapter  XVII,  En-lil  “lord  of 
the  storm”  is  very  probably  another  designation  of  the  Amorite 
storm-deity.  This  is  confirmed  by  the  reference  of  Tiglath-pileser 
I to  this  very  temple  in  Ashur,  in  which  he  mentions  it  as  “the 
temple  of  the  god  Amurru,  the  temple  of  the  elder  Bel,  the  divine 
house”  (King  Annals  p.  87).  The  passage  becomes  intelligible 
if  we  understand  it  to  mean  that  Amurru  is  the  elder  bel  matati,  or 
Enlil. 

The  god  Ashir  or  Ashur  is  not  known  to  have  been  worshipped 
in  early  Babylonia.  In  Cappadocia,  at  a time  probably  contem- 
poraneous with  the  Ur  dynasty,  hence  earlier  than  the  earliest 
Semitic  inscriptions  at  present  known  from  Ashur,  the  deity  was 
very  prominently  worshipped.  Besides,  as  referred  to  (see  Chap- 
ter XIII),  the  two  regions  had  certain  customs  in  common;  and  we 

3 Esarhaddon  refers  to  a king  Ellil-bani,  son  of  Adasi,  who  was  made 
a ruler  by  Ura-imitti,  but  he  seems  to  have  been  the  ruler  by  that  name 
of  the  Nisin  dynasty,  in  other  wTords  a Babylonian. 


XVI.  ASSYRIA  AND  AMTTRRN. 


159 


have  reason  for  believing  that  either  the  one  locality  influenced 
the  other,  or  there  was  an  intermediate  civilization,  of  which  we 
have  at  present  no  trace,  that  influenced  both.  As  mentioned  also, 
the  names  of  the  early  rulers  of  Assyria,  being  constituted  with 
the  Amorite  gods  Ashur,  Adad,  Dagan,  and  Shamshi,  show  that 
they  were  probably  Amorite.  Besides,  the  earliest  temple  of 
which  we  have  knowledge  was  erected  to  Adad  and  Anu,  who  were 
also  Amorite  gods  (see  Chapter  XVII). 

The  earliest  known  Assyrian  king  who  records  that  he  came  into 
contact  with  the  land  Amurru  was  Shamshi- Adad  III,  who  ruled 
about  1600  B.  C.  He  calls  himself  sar  kissati,  which  is  usually 
translated  “king  of  the  universe,”  and  informs  us  that  he  devoted 
his  energies  to  the  region  between  the  Tigris  and  the  Euphrates 
( KTA  2 Obv.  5-9).  Further,  he  states  that  he  set  up  a memorial 
stele  in  the  country  of  La-ab-a-an  (Lebanon),  on  the  shore  of  “the 
great  sea”  (the  Mediterranean)  ( KTA  2,  IV:  13  if.).  He  does 
not  mention  having  had  any  conflict  in  this  part  of  the  land,  which 
would  indicate  that  he  probably  ruled  prior  to  the  time  the  Hyksos 
were  driven  out  of  Egypt,  after  which  Western  Amurru  became 
tributary  to  that  land. 

Ashur-uballit,  who  lived  about  1400  B.  C.,  is  credited  by  a 
descendent  with  having  conquered  the  lands  of  Shubari,  Musri, 
etc.  ( KTA  3 Obv.  33  and  4 Obv.  25).  His  grandson  Arik-den-ilu 
conquered  the  bordering  lands  to  the  west  and  north-west  of 
Assyria,  including  the  Aramaeans  (Ahlami),  and  Sutu  peoples 
{KTA  3 1:  21).  Adad-nirari  II,  his  son,  about  1300  B.  C.,  who 
called  himself  “king  of  the  universe,”  conquered  many  strong- 
holds along  the  Euphrates,  including  Harran  as  far  as  Carchemish 
{KTA  5 Obv.  13).  Shalmaneser  I also  makes  the  same  claim  {KTA 
13  Rev.  Ill:  4).  Tukulti-Inurta,  about  1260  B.  C.,  claimed  to  be 
“king  of  the  universe,  king  of  the  four  quarters”  {KTA  17  Obv. 
1-2),  the  latter  title  being  more  comprehensive  than  the  former.4 

The  four  quarters,  as  is  well  known,  embraced  Akkad  on  the 
south,  Shubartu  on  the  north,  Elam  on  the  east,  and  Amurru  on 
the  west;  but  the  latter  country  could  only  have  been  conquered 
in  part,  for  it  was  during  this  time  that  the  Egyptians  and  the 

4 For  translations  of  these  texts,  see  Luekenbill  AJSL  28,  167  ff. 


160 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  THE  AMORITES. 


Hittites  were  contesting  for  the  supremacy  of  the  land  along  the 
Mediterranean ; and  in  fact  no  mention  is  made  of  Assyria  being 
involved  in  any  of  the  references  to  the  control  of  this  territory 
in  the  Egyptian  inscriptions  (see  Chapter  XIV).  From  a little 
later  on,  in  the  time  of  Tiglatli-pileser  I,  about  1100  B.  C.,  refer- 
ences to  this  part  of  Amurru  are  found  in  that  ruler’s  inscriptions. 

Amurru,  with  Mitanni  already  occupying  Aram,  it  would  seem, 
in  the  sixteenth  century  was  dominated  completely  by  neighboring- 
powers.  The  Hittites  had  encroached  upon  the  land  from  the  north 
and  the  north-east;  Egypt,  after  driving  hack  the  Hyksos,  con- 
trolled the  western  part  of  the  country  along  the  Mediterranean 
to  the  Euphrates,  even  crossing  it ; and  Assyria  had  continued  to 
hold  by  raids  or  concpiests  at  least  part  of  the  eastern  region. 
While  the  Egyptians  and  the  Hittites  came  into  conflict  over  the 
western  lands,  Egypt  and  Assyria  do  not  seem  to  have  experienced 
any  difficulties  with  each  other;  although  Assyria,  desiring  to  be 
on  friendly  terms  with  Tlmtmose  III,  sent  costly  gifts,  which  were 
interpreted  by  the  Egyptians  as  representing  tribute.  The  friend- 
ship of  Egypt  also  seems  to  have  been  greatly  desired  by  both 
Assyria  and  Babylonia  in  the  time  of  Amenhotep  III,  as  is  shown 
by  the  Amarna  letters.  Moreover,  the  Assyrian  inscriptions  of 
the  latter  half  of  the  second  millennium  show  us  that  repeated  con- 
quests were  necessary  to  maintain  supremacy  in  the  part  of 
Amurru  which  that  nation  tried  to  hold. 

Shamshi-Adad,  the  earliest  ruler  mentioned  above  who  claims  to 
have  been  solicitous  for  the  welfare  of  the  land  between  the  Tigris 
and  the  Euphrates,  is  doubtless  the  ruler  hearing  that  name  who 
built  the  temple  at  Tirqa  on  the  Euphrates  (see  Chapter  X).  He 
is  the  oidy  early  Assyrian  king  who  claims  to  have  done  more  than 
conquer  and  subdue ; and  it  must  be  admitted  that  it  is  an  interest- 
ing discovery  to  have  found  evidence  of  the  constructive  activity 
of  this  Assyrian  king  in  this  region  in  the  shape  of  the  votive 
tablet  referred  to  in  Chapter  XI. 

In  the  inscriptions  of  the  following  period  we  learn  that  Tiglatli- 
pileser  I (about  1125-1100),  who  had  extended  greatly  the  terri- 
tory of  Assyria,  sailed  in  ships  of  Arvad  upon  the  Mediterranean ; 
which  he  called  “the  great  sea  of  Amurru”  {KB  I 48:  8). 
Although  the  title  “king  of  the  four  quarters”  included  Amurru 


XVI.  ASSYRIA  AND  AMTJRRU. 


161 


(see  above),  Assyrian  inscriptions  prior  to  this  time  do  not  men- 
tion the  name  Amurru.  Ashir-bel-kala  in  his  inscription  mentions 
the  gods  of  Amurru  (King  AKA  p.  153).  Ashur-nasir-pal  refers 
to  the  great  sea  of  Amurru,  and  to  receiving  tribute  from  the  kings 
on  the  shore  of  the  sea  from  Tyre,  Sidon,  Byblos,  Mahallata,  Maisa, 
Kaisa,  Amurru,  and  Armada  ( KB  I 108:  85  and  86).  Adad-nirari 
III  says  he  conquered  Hatti,  Amurru,  Tyre,  Sidon,  Edom,  Omri 
(Israel)  and  Samaria  (KB  I 190:  11),  showing  that  he  did  not 
include  Palestine  in  Amurru.  Sargon  informs  us  that  he  ruled  the 
wide  land  of  Amurru,  in  which  he  included  Hatti  and  Damascus 
(X:  17,  XIV:  22,  46;  Annals  52).  Sennacherib  considers  that 
Amurru  included  the  cities  of  Philistia  and  Phoenicia,  as  well  as 
Beth-Amon,  Moab,  and  Edom  (KB  II  90).  Ashurbanipal  also 
included  Palestine  in  Amurru.5  The  references  show  that  in  the 
Assyrian  inscriptions  of  the  first  millennium  the  confines  of 
Amurru  varied,  and  the  name  had  an  uncertain  signification,  the 
same  as  in  the  Old  Testament;  moreover,  the  name  is  usually 
found  with  the  gentilic  ending  as  in  the  Old  Testament. 


5 See  Tofteen  AJSL  1908  p.  31. 


XVII 

THE  DEITIES  OF  AMURRU 

An  exhaustive  study  of  the  religions  of  Amurru  would  embrace 
not  only  all  the  ancient  inscriptions  that  have  been  discovered  in 
the  land,  including-  the  Old  Testament,  but  all  the  light  that  can  be 
gathered  from  contemporaneous  sources.  It  would  include  also 
certain  elements  of  belief  that  survive  at  present,  which  represent 
the  unconscious  inheritance  of  previous  millenniums ; also  sacred 
sites,  objects,  rites  and  practices.1 

The  purpose  of  the  present  effort  being  to  establish  the  existence 
of  an  antiquity  for  the  Amorite  civilization  and  to  show  its  influ- 
ence upon  other  nations,  it  must  suffice  to  discuss  briefly  only  such 
details  of  the  early  history  as  the  contemporaneous  records  offer ; 
and  instead  of  attempting  to  reconstruct  the  religion  of  the  Amor- 
ites,  which  at  the  present  would  be  an  impossibility,  little  more 
can  be  done  besides  presenting  the  knowledge  that  we  have  of  the 
prominent  deities  that  they  worshipped.  In  such  a review  it  is 
necessary  to  bear  in  mind  that  many  different  nations  or  tribes 
occupied  this  territory,  some  of  which  were  non-Semitic.  To  what 
extent  these  peoples’  religion  influenced  the  Amorite,  and  whether 
any  of  the  deities  we  now  consider  as  Semitic  were  foreign,  cannot 
be  determined.  Then  it  is  known  that  different  petty  principali- 
ties, as  in  Babylonia,  had  their  own  and  distinct  names  for  gods 
who  were  worshipped  in  other  districts  under  other  names.  The 
fact  that  so  many  of  the  deities  of  the  land  were  storm-gods,  and 
were  identified  with  each  other,  would  seem  to  confirm  this.  Even 
Jahweh  was  regarded  by  the  Hebrews  as  a storm-deity,  a god  of 
the  mountains.  Certain  groups  of  deities  are  mentioned  in  the 
Aramaean  inscriptions,  as  for  example  in  the  Panammu  inscrip- 
tion, Hadad,  El,  Resheph,  Rekeb-el,  and  Shamash;  it  is  nevertheless 

1 Small  but  valuable  compends  of  the  early  religion  of  Canaan  are  Cook 
The  Religion  of  Ancient  Palestine,  and  Paton  The  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

(162) 


XVII.  THE  DEITIES  OF  AMURKU. 


163 


impossible  at  the  present  time  to  attempt  a reconstruction  of  a 
pantheon  or  pantheons — in  fact,  it  is  possible  to  do  little  more  than 
discuss  in  some  instances  the  attributes  of  the  gods,  and  set  forth 
in  a general  way  the  facts  that  can  be  gathered  concerning  them. 
But  this  knowledge  coming  from  contemporaries  who  had  adopted 
the  deities,  or  referred  to  them,  very  often  shows  such  modifica- 
tions of  what  is  usually  regarded  as  the  original  conceptions  of  the 
deities,  that  its  value  appears  to  be  only  relative  in  arriving  at  per- 
manent conclusions  concerning  the  sex,  nature  and  attributes  of  the 
Amorite  gods. 

In  not  a few  instances  it  has  been  ascertained  that  the  character 
of  gods  was  changed  after  they  had  been  transported  to  other 
lands.  These  changes  may  have  been  due  to  various  causes.  The 
deity  of  the  mountains  when  brought  into  the  plains  would  grad- 
ually lose  his  mountainous  character.  A storm-god  transported 
to  a rainless  land  would  naturally  have  other  attributes  empha- 
sized. If  Ea  is  Amorite,  as  is  claimed,  and  the  ideogram  En-ki, 
“lord  of  the  earth,”  is  an  indication  of  the  nature  of  the  god  in 
the  country  where  he  was  indigenous,  we  can  only  conclude  that 
it  was  when  brought  to  Eridu  in  southern  Babylonia,  a city  that 
had  been  built  on  land  regained  from  the  sea,  that  he  became  a god 
of  the  springs  and  the  deep. 

Rivalry,  prejudice,  or  contempt  may  have  been  responsible  for 
a deity’s  being  regarded  quite  differently  in  a foreign  land  from 
the  way  he  was  regarded  in  the  land  where  autochthonous.  Urra 
in  Babylonia  was  looked  upon  as  the  god  of  pestilence,  plague, 
destruction,  etc.  Ne-Uru-Gal,  JJrra-Gal,  or  Urru,  the  Nergal  of 
Cutha,  was  the  god  of  the  underworld  as  well  as  of  plague  and 
pestilence.  If  Cutha  was  a Babylonian  city  of  the  dead,  we  should 
have  a reason  for  this  conception  of  the  deity.  He,  as  well  as  other 
deities,  who  originally  partook  of  the  same  nature  as  the  god  Uru 
or  Urru  or  Amurru,  are  gods  of  war  like  the  storm-god  Adad  (see 
below).  A storm-deity  is  naturally  a god  of  destruction,  as  well 
as  one  who  has  considerable  to  do  with  vegetation.  It  would  seem 
reasonable  to  infer  that  the  idea  that  this  deity  was  a god  of 
plagues,  pestilences,  and  death  had  developed  in  the  land  which 
had  from  time  to  time  suffered  violence  at  the  hands  of  the  hordes 
who  worshipped  him.  Such  a god  of  the  invaders,  perhaps  ruth- 


164 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  THE  AMORITES. 


less,  was  regarded  as  rasubbu,  “the  terrible.”  Nergal,  although 
adopted  in  the  Babylonian  pantheon,  may  have  continued  to  he 
recognized  as  a god  of  the  West.  With  this  understanding  it  is 
not  difficult  to  comprehend  how  a god  of  the  Amorites,  who  had 
again  and  again  invaded  Babylonia,  would  he  regarded  as  such  a 
deity.  Doubtless  the  same  conception  arose  in  the  West  concern- 
ing the  Babylonian  and  Assyrian  war  gods,  who  had  brought 
calamity  so  often  upon  the  people ; but  unfortunately  we  have  no 
way  at  present  of  determining  this. 

Another  modification  which  the  original  character  of  certain 
deities  suffered  was  the  change  in  sex,  a question  which  Barton 
and  others  have  fully  discussed.  (See  Semitic  Origins  pp.  120, 
191  ff.  etc.).  When  the  goddess  Ashirta  was  carried  into  Arabia, 
she  became  the  god  Athtar ; and  the  god  Shamash  became  a god- 
dess. In  the  Nippur  Name  Syllabary  it  would  seem  that  Shamash 
in  the  name  Tu-li-id-dSamsi(-si)  ( UMBS  XI  1,  39)  was  also 
regarded  as  feminine.  Urta,  the  goddess  of  the  Amorites  in  Baby- 
lonia, became  masculinized,  although  the  name  In-Urta  stood  for  a 
goddess  as  well  as  a god  (see  below). 

Some  scholars  see  in  this  transformation  of  sex  the  idea  of  the 
combination  of  the  two  principles,  male  and  female.  True,  Venus 
was  credited  with  an  androgynous  character  by  certain  ancient 
writers  of  the  late  period,  but  the  existence  of  a hermaphrodite 
in  the  Semitic  world  is  yet  to  be  proved. 

In  the  development  of  theological  systems  in  the  various  Baby- 
lonian centres  we  find  many  attempts  at  identifying  one  god  with 
another.  Such  a practice  was  perfectly  natural  in  a land  into 
which  foreign  gods  were  constantly  filtering.  As  a result  the  syl- 
labaries of  deities  contain  many  syncretistic  formations,  such  as 
Uru-Mash,  Shar-Maradda,  Shar-Girru,  Nannar-Gir-Gal,  Amar- 
Utug,  etc.  Such  formations  were  known  also  in  the  West, 
as  Ashtar-Chemosh,  Hadad-Rimmon,  ‘Attar-‘Ate,  Itur-Mer,  Bir- 
Dadda,  Giri-Dadda,  Jahweh-Sabaotli,  Jahweh-Shalom,  etc. 

As  is  well  known  the  generic  designations  or  titles  as  El  “god,” 
Ba‘al  “lord,  owner,”  with  its  corresponding  feminine  form 
Ba‘ alat,  were  used  in  connection  with  deities  of  different  localities. 
It  seems  Malik  or  Melek,  probably  the  same  as  Molech  of  the  Old 
Testament,  was  another  such  appellation.  In  only  a few  instances 


XVII.  THE  DEITIES  OF  AMUEEU. 


165 


can  the  names  of  the  deities  who  are  represented  by  such  designa- 
tions be  surmised;  to  cite  a single  example,  the  Ba‘ al  of  Harran 
was  the  moon  god  Sin.  In  Egypt  Ba‘al  became  the  name  of  a 
deity,  as  was  Bel,  another  name  for  Marduk  in  the  Neo-Babylonian 
period.  Adon  “lord”  is  another  such  term.  This  element 
appears  frequently  in  Assyrian  texts,  as  A-du-na-i-si,  A-du-ni- 
ba--al,  A-du-ni-ili-a,  etc.  Abu  “father”  is  found  in  many  Old 
Testament  names  like  Ab-rdm , Abi-hud,  Abi-melech,  Abi-shuaf , etc., 
where,  as  in  other  Semitic  lands,  it  is  used  as  a substitute  for  the 
name  of  a deity.  ‘Am  written  in  cuneiform  Amma,  Hammu,  etc., 
which  some  regard  as  a designation  of  “the  father-uncle,”  borne 
by  the  husbands  of  a wife  when  polyandry  was  practiced,  is  also 
used  instead  of  a deity  in  personal  names,  cf.  ‘Am-ram,  ‘ Ammi-el, 
‘Ammi-hud,  etc.2 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  name  of  Amurru  or  Uru  is  the 
same  as  that  of  the  land,  and  that  Aloros  “god  Uru”  stood  at 
the  head  of  the  Chaldean  mythological  list  of  antediluvian  kings,  it 
would  seem  that  the  god  Amurru  or  Uru  was  the  head  of  the  pan- 
theon of  Amurru.  Nevertheless,  because  of  our  very  limited 
knowledge  of  the  Amorite  religion  it  seems  best  at  this  time  to 
consider  the  deities  alphabetically.  " 

Adad  is  one  of  the  most  prominent  deities  of  the  Western 
Semites.  He  is  known  in  the  Old  Testament  as  Hadad.  The  name 
is  found  written  in  cuneiform:  A-da-ad,  Ad-du,  Ad-di,  A-ad-du, 
A-da-di,  A-da-da,  Da-ad-da,  Da-di , Ha-di,  etc.  Another  name  of 
this  deity,  perhaps  arisen  as  an  epithet,  is  Ramman,  also  written 
Ramimu,  Rimmon,  Pen/mv  (2  Kgs.  5:  18),  etc.  (see  Deimel  Pantheon 
Babylonicum,  43  f.). 

Adad,  together  with  Shamash,  figures  prominently  in  the  Hittite 
treaty,  where  both  bear  the  title  “lord  of  heaven.”  In  one  of  the 
Amarna  letters,  Abimelech,  king  of  Tyre,  likens  the  Pharaoh  to 
Shamash  and  Adad.  In  the  Aramaic  inscription  of  King  Pan- 
ammu  of  northern  Syria  (eighth  century),  he  is  mentioned  at 
the  head  of  a list  of  five  gods ; Hadad,  El,  Resheph,  Rekeb-el,  and 
Shamash.  In  Assyria  and  Babylonia,  to  which  lands  they  were 
carried,  Shamash  and  Adad  were  lords  of  divination.  In  Assyria 

2 See  Paton’s  article  on  ‘Amm  in  Encyclopaedia  of  Religion  and  Ethics. 


166 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  THE  AMORITES. 


a common  name  for  the  early  rulers  was  Shamshi-Adad.  The 
name  may  mean  ‘ ‘ My  sun  is  Adad,  ’ ’ hut  it  also  may  mean  ‘ ‘ Sham- 
ash  is  Adad,”  a syncretistic  formation,  many  examples  of  which 
have  been  found  in  Amurru  (see  above).  There  are  other  deities 
of  the  West  lands,  including  some  that  are  not  Semitic,  that  have 
been  likened  to  Adad  of  Amurru,  namely  Dagan  of  Amurru,  Tesliub 
of  Suki,  Adgi  of  Suhki,  H-Hallapu,  Ilu-We-ir.3 

We  are  dependent  for  our  knowledge  of  the  nature  of  Adad 
largely  upon  the  inscriptions  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria,  where  he 
was  regarded  as  the  weather-god,  the  god  of  the  tempest,  inunda- 
tions, lightning,  and  thunder.  Gods  as  well  as  men  seemed  to 
stand  in  awe  of  him  because  of  his  power  over  the  elements.  He 
was  the  lord  of  abundance  at  the  same  time  that  he  was  of  want 
and  hunger,  which  resulted  from  his  withholding  the  rain.  His 
destructive  power  made  him  an  appropriate  war-deity;  and  we 
find  Hammurabi  speaking  of  him  as  “the  mighty  bull  who  gores 
the  enemy.”  Doubtless,  Adad  is  meant  by  the  picture  of  the 
powerful  bull  breaking  down  the  fortress  representing  a deity  in 
an  Egyptian  scene.  It  should  be  added  that  Adad’s  close  associa- 
tion with  Shamash,  especially  because  of  the  very  common  combi- 
nation Shamshi-Adad  in  names,  and  other  facts,  show  that 
attributes  of  a solar-god  were  blended  with  those  of  a storm-deity 
in  Adad. 

Adad,  unlike  several  other  West  Semitic  deities,  although 
brought  into  the  Babylonian  pantheon,  was  not  identified  with  any 
particular  centre  in  Babylonia,  at  least  as  far  as  is  known  at  pres- 
ent. In  Assyria  his  position  was  different,  for  one  of  the  earliest 
temples  was  erected  to  Anu  and  Adad.  Later,  Ashur  supplanted 
Anu,  and  the  two  prominent  deities  of  the  land  became  Ashur  and 
Adad. 

In  the  art  of  the  seal  cylinders,  Adad  is  frequently  seen  resting 
his  foot  upon  a bull,  or  standing  entirely  upon  the  annual,  which 
he  leads  by  a leash  attached  to  a ring  in  its  nose.  In  the  same  hand 
he  holds  a thunderbolt ; the  other  hand  is  usually  held  against  the 
breast.  The  many  devotees  of  Adad  ( dIM ) among  the  Amorites 

3 See  CT  25,  16  and  17  etc.,  but  especially  in  connection  with  the  many 
forms  in  which  the  god  Amurru  or  Uru  occur  (Chapter  VII) . 


XVII.  THE  DEITIES  OF  AMURRU. 


167 


living  in  Babylonia,  as  is  shown  by  the  impressions  of  seal  cylinders 
in  the  time  of  the  First  Dynasty,  is  an  indication  as  to  how  exten- 
sive was  the  worship  of  the  deity  at  this  time. 

Adgi  is  a name  of  the  storm-god  Adad  in  the  land  of  Suhi, 
according  to  the  list  of  gods  GT  25,  16 : 19.  It  occurs  in  the  name 
Ad-gi-ilu  of  the  Assyrian  documents  ( ADD  17:  3),  and  in  the  name 
Ad-gi-si-ri-za-bad-du  of  the  Murashu  texts  {BE  X 55:  1),  which 
is  also  written  in  the  Aramaic  endorsement  on  the  tablet,  "DD’t^JnK. 
In  the  latter  name  the  god  seems  to  be  syncretized  with  Siri,  namely 
Adgi-Siri. 

Amurru  or  Uru.  It  has  been  previously  maintained  by  the 
writer  that  the  name  of  the  West  Semitic  deity  Amurru  or  Uru, 
when  brought  into  Babylonia  by  the  Semites,  was  written  differ- 
ently in  different  centres.  For  example,  at  Babylon  the  name 
appeared  Amar-Utug,  probably  a syncretistic  formation ; at  Cutha 
it  was  written  Ne-Uru-Gal,  Urra-Gal,  etc.  On  the  ideographic  and 
phonetic  writings  of  the  name,  see  Chapter  VII. 

In  studying  the  inscriptions  of  the  seal  impressions  on  tablets 
dated  in  the  time  of  the  First  Dynasty,  one  is  struck  with  the  num- 
ber of  individuals  who  acknowledged  obeisance  to  Amurru  {dMar- 
tu ).  What  especially  stands  out  in  these  seal  inscriptions  is  the 
writing  d El- Amurru  ( dAN-Mar-tu ).  The  two  signs  for  deity  have 
been  regarded  as  representing  a Phoenician  plural,  and  read  elim 
or  eloriim;  or  it  has  been  read  dAn-Mar-tu  and  regarded  as  a com- 
bination of  Anu  and  Martu .4  There  can  be  little  doubt  but  that 
the  reading  is,  as  stated  above,  El- Amurru,  or  } El-TJru  (see  Amurru 
1909,  p.  158).  This  name  appears  frequently  in  the  syllabaries  of 
deities  written  ’El-Mer  ( dIlu-Me-ir ) ; and  it  is  another  example 
of  the  prefixing  of  the  word  for  god  to  names  of  deities  like  ’El- 
Shaddai,  ’El  ’Elyon,  Il-Tammesh,  Il-Tehri,  Il-Teri,  Al-Si’,  Al-Nashu 
{Amurru  p.  158),  also  Il-Kanshan,  and  U-Ashirta  (Lutz  EBL  p.  4). 
The  custom  of  actually  pronouncing  El  “god”  as  a prefix  to  the 
name  of  deities,  as  the  writer  has  indicated,  was  apparently  West 
Semitic.  Moreover,  one  needs  only  to  consult  the  names  of  the 

4 See  Krausz  Gotternamen  p.  9,  and  Hommel’s  editorial  note  in  same, 
p.  56.  Radau  reads  AN-dMAR-TU,  holding  that  MAR-TTJ  was  identified 
with  the  highest  and  oldest  Babylonian  god  AN  {BE  28,  p.  41). 


168 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  THE  AMORITES. 


patron  deities  of  scribes  and  of  individuals  to  see  how  extensively 
not  only  Uru  but  other  West  Semitic  deities  were  worshipped  in 
the  time  of  the  First  Dynasty  (see  Chapter  VIII). 

The  name  of  the  counterpart  of  this  deity  at  Babylon,  namely 
Marduk,  as  well  as  other  names  of  deities  like  Nergal,  etc.,  who 
were  regarded  as  sun-gods,  considered  in  connection  with  the 
Aramaic  form  of  the  name  ’Uru  OIN),  also  the  Talmudic  word  for 
“sunset”  (’ uria ),  as  well  as  other  considerations,  made  it  seem 
that  the  god  Anrarru  was  a solar  deity  ( Amurru  100  ft.).  How- 
ever, it  must  be  admitted  that  the  West  Semitic  deity,  Amurru  or 
Uru,  regarded  as  the  original  deity  from  whom  the  others  evolved, 
was  primarily  a storm-deity  in  the  land  where  he  was  indigenous. 
This  is  determined  by  the  syllabaries,  where  his  name  is  so  often 
equated  with  Adad.  Transference  of  the  deity  from  his  original 
mountainous  home  to  the  fertile  plain  between  the  rivers,  where 
the  inhabitants  were  dependent  upon  agriculture,  was  probably 
responsible  for  the  solar  traits  that  were  assumed. 

Ann  and  Antu,  the  writer  has  suggested,  contrary  to  the  accepted 
opinion  that  they  were  Babylonian  or  originally  Sumerian,  had 
their  origin  among  the  Western  Semites  (see  Amurru  p.  142).  A 
number  of  considerations  lead  to  this  conclusion,  among  which  are 
the  following. 

The  name  Anna  or  Ana  very  probably  is  found  in  the  personal 
names  of  Chaldeans  who  made  revelations  at  the  time  the  tradi- 
tional dynasty  of  Aloros  ruled  (see  Chapter  VIII) ; the  second 
revelation  was  by  AmySwros,  the  third  by  etc.,  and  the  fourth 

by  ’AvwScu^os. 

The  temple  of  Ashur  erected  or  restored  about  2400  B.  C.  was 
built  in  honor  of  the  gods  Anu  and  Adad,  the  latter  being  a West 
Semitic  deity;  and  as  Assyria  was  not  settled  by  Babylonians  as 
heretofore  held  (see  Chapter  XVI),  but  by  people  from  the  lands 
lying  west  of  the  country,  it  seems  reasonable  to  infer  that  the 
former  was  also  West  Semitic.  Anu  also  figures  in  certain  inscrip- 
tions of  Assyrian  kings  prominently  associated  with  Dagan, 
another  West  Semitic  deity.  Anu  and  Dagan  are  addressed  in 
the  prayer  of  Ashurbanipal  (Craig  Rel.  Texts  II  21 : Rev.  2).  The 
laws  of  Anu  and  Dagan  are  referred  to  by  the  Assyrian  kings. 

Antu  is  well  known  in  place  names  in  Amurru.  Anatliotk,  the 


XVII.  THE  DEITIES  OF  AMUKEU. 


169 


city  where  Jeremiah  grew  up,  is  a little  distance  to  the  north-east 
of  Jerusalem.  Beth-Anoth  (Josh.  15:  59)  is  identified  with  Beit 
‘Ainun  in  the  neighborhood  of  Bethzur.  This  may  be  the  ancient 
shrine  referred  to  as  a city  conquered  by  Seti  I (BAB  III,  114). 
Ramses  II  mentions  a city  on  the  mount  of  Beth-Anoth  ( BAR  III 
356).  A city  in  Judah  bearing  the  same  name  was  also  conquered 
by  Sheshonk  I ( BAR  IY,  762).  Bethany  (written  in  Syriac  Beth 
‘Aril’  N’JjLf  JV3  on  the  road  to  Jericho  from  Jerusalem,  as  well  as 
Bethany  'beyond  Jordan  may  also  have  been  shrines  of  Anu. 
As  heretofore  suggested  by  Professor  Montgomery  (see  Amurru 
p.  143),  Anu  may  be  found  in  the  personal  name  ‘Aner,  written 
An-ram  in  the  Samaritan  Hebrew.  ‘Anatli  father  of  Sliamgar 
(Josh.  3:  31)  may  be  an  abbreviated  name  which  originally  con- 
tained that  of  the  goddess. 

Anu  also  figures  in  the  nomenclature  of  the  Cappadocian  tablets, 
cf.  Gimil-A-nim  (BA  VIII  p.  149),  Pi-sa-A-na,  and  [Id]-sa-A-na 
( Babyloniaca  VI  p.  191,  7 : 11).  The  latter  name  appears  in  a tab- 
let referring  to  a decision  rendered  in  the  “house  of  the  judgment 
of  Ana,”  concerning  some  property  belonging  to  the  god.  This 
shows  that  there  was  a temple  of  Anu  in  Cappadocia. 

The  worship  of  Antu  was  carried  comparatively  early  to  Egypt. 
The  priesthood  of  the  goddess  at  Thebes  is  already  mentioned  in 
the  time  of  Thutmose  III.  Ramses  II  gave  his  favorite  daughter 
a name  which  meant  ‘ ‘ daughter  of  Anatli.  ’ ’ Since  it  has  not  been 
shown  that  Babylonian  influence  had  been  exerted  upon  Egypt  in 
the  early  period,  it  must  be  assumed  at  least  that  the  goddess  was 
borrowed  from  the  people  of  Amurru. 

What  seems  to  be  the  most  important  centre  of  Anu  and  Antu 
worship  is  at  ‘Ana  and  ‘Anatho  on  the  Euphrates  (see  Chapter 
XI) ; and  it  is  not  improbable  that  from  this  quarter  it  was  spread 
throughout  the  adjoining  lands. 

Anu  was  carried  to  Erech  in  a very  early  period  by  the  Semites ; 
for  whom  the  temple  called  E-Anna  was  erected.  Lugal-zaggisi, 
Gudea,  and  Ur-Engur,  regarded  him  as  the  “lord  of  lords.”  The 
Sumerians  very  probably  adopted  Anna  as  one  of  their  deities. 
The  goddess  Antu,  however,  does  not  seem  to  have  been  introduced 
at  Erech  in  the  early  period ; Ishtar  appears  as  the  consort  of  Anu. 
It  would  seem  also  that  Lulubu  was  another  city  in  which  the  wor- 


170 


THE  EMPIRE  OP  THE  AMORITES. 


ship  of  these  deities  had  been  introduced.  In  the  inscription  of 
Annu-banini  of  an  early  period,  who  had  erected  a statue  to  Ishtar 
in  the  mountain  of  Batir,  the  king  invokes  for  it  the  protection  of 
the  gods  Annu  and  Antu,  Enlil  and  Ninlil,  Adad  and  Ishtar,  Sin  and 
Shamash,  etc.  Anu  was  also  early  worshipped  at  Kish,  another 
Semitic  centre.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  the  name  of  Anu-mutabil, 
governor  of  the  city  of  Der,  who  probably  lived  about  the  time  of 
the  First  Dynasty,  is  also  compounded  with  that  of  the  deity. 

In  connection  with  the  question  of  the  origin  of  the  gods  it  must 
be  regarded  as  significant  that  the  worship  of  Antu  was  not  intro- 
duced at  Erech  until  the  Greek  period,  and  even  then  it  does  not 
appear  in  the  nomenclature.  Nor  was  the  name  introduced  into 
Assyria  ; whereas  in  the  broad  expanse  of  Amurru  and  in  Egypt 
we  have  so  much  evidence  of  it ; and  where  it  left  such  an  indelible 
impression. 

Anu  has  been  regarded  by  scholars  as  being  originally  a sun- 
god  whose  great  luminary  was  in  the  heavens,  who  became  in  the 
development  of  later  theological  systems  the  chief  deity  of  the 
heavens.  In  Egypt  the  goddess  is  represented  sitting  upon  a 
throne,  with  a feathered  head-dress  similar  to  the  representations 
of  Ashirta  with  whom  she  is  often  paired.  She  has  a lance  and  a 
shield  in  her  right  hand  and  a battle-axe  in  the  left ; or  she  is  rep- 
resented as  clad  in  a panther-skin.  She  is  a warlike  goddess  and 
sensual;  is  called  lady  of  heaven,  daughter  of  the  sun,  etc.  (Muller 
EM  p.  156). 

Ashir,  whose  name  is  written  in  cuneiform  A-sir,  A-sa-ru-um, 
A-usar,  A-sur,  and  As-sur,  and  in  the  West  Semitic  script 
(also  ")DN)  was  in  all  probability  of  West  Semitic  origin  ( Amurru 
138  ff.).  This  conclusion  followed  the  consideration  that  the  name 
did  not  appear  in  early  Babylonian  nomenclature  and  because  of 
its  prominence  in  the  early  Cappadocian  tablets  and  in  the  Phoe- 
nician and  Aramaic  inscriptions.  Further  the  name  Ashirta 
appears  to  be  the  feminine  of  Ashir,  even  though  Ashirta  is  in 
most  cases  written  with  ay  in,  while  the  few  cases  in  which  Ashir 
is  found  in  the  late  Phoenician  and  Aramaic  inscriptions  the  name 
is  Avritten  with  alepli.  If  this  is  correct,  the  original  habitat  of 
Ashir  it  would  seem  was  probably  the  same  as  Ashirta. 


XVII.  THE  DEITIES  OF  AMURRU. 


171 


An  interesting  confirmation  of  tlie  assumption  that  the  deity  is 
West  Semitic  is  the  fact  that  Ashar  is  found  in  the  Amorite  Name 
Syllabary  in  the  name  Ia-[ku\-un-A-sa-ru-um  ( UMBS  XI  2 1 II : 6), 
and  it  is  not  found  in  the  Akkadian.  It  is  to  be  noted,  however, 
that  the  deity  is  not  found  in  the  few  known  Hana  tablets,  or  in 
the  Harran  Census.  It  is  to  be  further  noted  that  the  feminine 
Ashirta  or  the  Assyrian  Ishtar  do  not  figure  prominently  in  these 
texts,  occurring  once  in  the  names  of  the  former,  ldin-dRl,  and  a 
few  times  in  the  latter,  which  of  course  belong  to  the  late  Assyrian 
period.  (See  also  Chapter  X.) 

Ashur,  whose  symbol  is  the  solar  disc,  seems  to  have  been  a sun- 
god,  in  Assyria.  This  is  probably  shown  also  by  the  name  Asir- 
Samsi  “Ashir  is  Shamash,  or  “Ashir  is  my  sun,”  found  in  the 
Cappadocian  tablets,  and  yet  like  Amurru  he  is  also  a mountain- 
god,  cf.  dAs-swr  ilu  si-ru  a-si-ib  E-har-sag-kur-kur-ra  ‘ ‘Ashur  the 
exalted  god  who  dwells  in  ‘the  temple  of  the  mountain  of  the 
world’  ” ( KTA  3,  Rev.  23),  and  also  Asur  sadu  rabu  “Ashur,  the 
great  mountain”  ( CT  26,  1:  11).  His  warlike  attributes,  which 
are  pictured  also  in  his  emblem  of  the  solar  disc  by  the  represen- 
tation of  a warrior  with  an  arrow,  are  well  set  forth  in  the  passage 
“Ashur  the  good  one,  strong  warrior,  mighty  in  battle,  who  burns 
up  the  enemy,  thunders  amongst  his  foes,  who  bursts  forth  like  a 
flame  of  fire,  who  decides  the  battle,  and  like  the  snare  or  certain 
death  is  the  onset  of  his  arms”  ( AJSL  28  p.  186). 

Ashirta  offers  the  most  complicated  and  intricate  of  all  problems 
in  connection  with  the  names  of  West  Semitic  deities,  the  reason 
being  that  her  worship  was  spread  throughout  the  Semitic  world ; 
that  in  certain  lands  her  sex  was  changed ; and  that  her  name 
appears  in  so  many  different  forms.  In  inscriptions  coming  from 
Amurru  her  name  appears  in  the  name  Abdi-Asirta  in  the  Amaru  a 
letters,  A-si-ir-ta  and  As-ra-tum(ti,  to) ; in  the  Moabite  inscription 
it  is  written  ‘strt ; and  in  the  Phoenician  inscriptions  ‘ strh,  ‘strt, 
also  ’srh  and  ’str  (late).  In  one  of  the  letters  of  Ashirti-washur 
found  at  Ta‘anach,  belonging  to  the  Amarna  period,  the  oracle 
of  Ashirat  is  referred  to.5  We  learn  that  “Solomon  went  after 

5 See  Hrozny  Ta‘annek  No.  1:21.  Since  the  name  of  the  deity  of  this 


172 


THE  EMPIBE  OF  THE  AMOBITES. 


Ashtoreth,  the  goddess  of  the  Zidonians”  (1  Kgs.  11:  5).  In  the 
peace  treaty  of  Ramses  II  with  the  Hittites,  Ashtart  is  looked  upon 
as  a goddess  of  that  land.  The  deity  also  figures  prominently  in 
the  West  Semitic  names  of  the  Cappadocian  tablets. 

Ashtaroth  was  the  city  of  Og,  king  of  Baslian  (Deut.  1 : 14;  Josh. 
9:  10,  etc.)  Ashtarotli-Karnaim  is  mentioned  in  Gilead,  as  the 
place  of  Chedorlaomer’s  defeat  of  the  Rephaim  (Gen.  14:  5). 
Beeshtarah,  the  Levitical  city  in  Manasseh  (Josh.  21:  27)  is 
regarded  as  Beth  ‘Ashtera  “Temple  of  Aslitera,”  and  is  thought 
to  be  identical  with  Ashtaroth  of  1 Cli.  6:71.  Thutmose  III  refers 
to  a Palestinian  city  ‘Astiratu  (Muller  AE  162,  313).  alAs-tar-te 
is  also  mentioned  in  the  Amarna  tablets. 

In  Jerome’s  Onomasticon,  two  forts  bear  this  name,  which  are 
nine  miles  apart,  lying  between  Adara  and  Abila.  Ashtaroth  the 
city  of  Og  is  placed  six  miles  from  Adara.  Karnaim  Ashtaroth, 
apparently  the  same  as  Ashtarotli-Karnaim,  is  said  to  be  a town 
lying  in  the  angle  formed  by  the  Nahr  er-Raqqad  and  the  Yarmuk, 
which  apparently  is  represented  to-day  by  Tell  ‘ Ashtara  about  two 
miles  south-east  of  El  Merkez  where  the  governor  of  the  Hauran 
resides.  Ashtarotli-Karnaim  is  also  placed  by  some  at  Tell 
Ashary,  a site  about  five  miles  south  of  Tell  ‘Aslitara. 

The  worship  of  Ashirta  was  early  introduced  into  Babylonia  by 
the  Semites  who  migrated  there.  The  earliest  name  known  to  the 
writer  that  is  compounded  with  it,  is  En-bi-As-tar,  a pre-Sargonic 
ruler  of  Kish.  The  name  in  time  was  pronounced  Isktar  in  Baby- 
lonia and  Assyria,  although  occasionally  such  West  Semitic  forms 
as  As-tar-tu  (time  of  Esarliaddon)  are  found.  In  the  early  Baby- 
lonian inscription  of  Anu-banini  of  Lulubu,  Ishtar  ( dRI ) appears 
as  the  consort  of  dIM.  An  inscription  of  Lugal-tar-si  is  dedicated 
to  Ann  and  to  dNinni  which  is  a Sumerian  name  of  Ishtar.  As  the 
consort  of  Marduk  her  name  appears  as  Sarpanitum.  She  is  also 
the  consort  of  Ashur  in  Assyria,  and  of  other  gods,  the  explanation 
being  that  the  name  Ishtar  in  many  instances  had  become  the  gen- 
eric name  for  “goddess.”  She  was  also  regarded  as  the  daughter 

Amorite  is  written  phonetically  A-si-rat,  it  scarcely  seems  proper  to  read 
the  ideogram  dRI  in  this  name  Ishtar,  as  has  been  done;  and  especially 
as  we  have  no  justification  for  this  reading  in  any  West  Semitic  inscription. 


XVII.  THE  DEITIES  OF  AMURRU. 


173 


of  Sin  and  Anu.  (See  Jastrow  BBBA  105  if.).  A Babylonian 
hymn,  rewritten  in  the  Greek  period,  informs  us  that  in  her 
original  home,  where  her  name  was  Ashrat,  and  regarded  as  “the 
goddess  of  the  plain,”  she  was  the  consort  of  Amurru  ( dMar-Tu-e ), 
“lord  of  the  mountain”  ( SBH , 139:  143-5). 

A study  of  the  epithets  of  the  Babylonian  Islxtar  shows  that  she 
is  credited  with  playing  the  role  of  most  of  the  gods,  besides  being 
the  mother  goddess,  the  goddess  of  wedlock  and  maternity.  She 
is  regarded  as  being  a storm  and  a war  goddess ; as  the  giver  of 
vegetation;  she  presides  over  rivers,  canals,  flocks,  etc.  She  is 
identified  with  other  goddesses,  and  in  consequence  partakes  of 
their  attributes,  or  those  of  their  consorts.  Like  Aphrodite,  in 
some  parts  of  Babylonia,  she  was  also  recognized  as  a dissolute 
goddess,  and  prostitution  was  practiced  in  her  name.  The  pas- 
sage Deut.  23 : 18  together  with  other  evidences  would  seem  to  show 
that  these  immoral  rites  had  been  introduced  from  the  West. 

The  worship  of  Ashirta  or  ‘Astarte  was  carried  to  Egypt  where 
she  was  worshipped  in  the  city  Ramses  and  elsewhere.  Her  chief 
temple  was  at  Memphis.  In  Egypt  she  was  known  as  the  goddess 
of  war,  of  horses  and  the  chariot.  Anath  and  Astarte  were  “the 
shields”  of  Ramses  III  ( BAB  IV : 105).  Qedesh,  perhaps  another 
manifestation  of  ‘Astarte,  is  pictured  as  a nude  goddess  standing 
on  a lion,  holding  flowers  in  one  hand  and  a serpent  in  the  other, 
and  wearing  the  sun  and  moon  on  her  head.  ‘Asit,  who  always 
rides  on  horseback,  may  be  another  form  of  Astarte  (Muller  EM 
p.  156). 

In  Arabia  the  deity  Atlitar,  regarded  as  the  same  as  Islitar,  was 
recognized  as  masculine.  Some  scholars  maintain  that  ‘Attar  or 
‘ Atar(  *UW),  who  appears  late  in  Aram,  is  a modification ; although 
this  is  by  no  means  certain.  On  the  Moabite  stone  (ninth  century) 
‘Ashtar  is  identified  with  Chemosh,  and  is  also  regarded  by 
scholars  as  masculine. 

Many  scholars  hold  that  the  original  home  of  the  goddess  was  in 
Babylonia.  Barton  and  others  regard  it  as  fairly  well  established 
that  Ishtar  was  a universal  Semitic  deity,  but  that  Arabia  is  its 
home.  While  it  is  one  of  those  questions  that  cannot  be  deter- 
mined, and  every  one  is  entitled  to  his  or  her  view,  there  is  little 
question  in  the  mind  of  the  writer  in  the  light  of  the  above,  that 


171 


THE  EMPIBE  OF  THE  AMOBITES. 


this  goddess  emanated  from  Amurru;  and  very  probably  from 
Halab  or  Aleppo  (see  Chapter  XII). 

Barton  finds  the  origin  of  the  name  in  the  root  ’tara,  as  a term 
connected  with  irrigation.  Paton  follows  him  and  suggests  that 
it  applied  to  the  numen  of  the  spring  and  meant  “self  waterer.”6 
There  may  be  reasons  based  on  the  attributes  of  the  god  Athtar 
for  this  conception,  but  scarcely  on  those  of  Ashtaroth-Ishtar. 

There  is  no  way  of  determining  whether  the  view  that  Ashirta 
is  the  feminine  of  Ashir  is  correct,  but  it  appears  perfectly  rea- 
sonable in  spite  of  all  the  objections  that  have  been  raised.  Meta- 
thesis could  have  taken  place  and  Ashirta  or  Ashrat  became 
Ashtar.  Subsequently  when  the  etymology  had  been  lost  sight  of, 
the  feminine  ending  could  have  been  added,  when  Ashtar  became 
Ashtartu.  The  place  name  Anathoth  of  the  Old  Testament  would 
seem  also  to  contain  a double  feminine  ending.  Such  forms  as 
qinnatate,  feminine  plural  of  qinnu  “family,”  which  occur  in  the 
Babylonian  contract  literature,  must  be  explained  in  the  same  way. 

Ata  or  Atta  was  a West  Semitic  deity  frequently  found  in  the 
Aramaic  inscriptions.  It  is  found  in  a name  in  the  Harran  Census, 
A-ta-id-ri,  and  in  A-ta-su-ri,  Sa-ku-a-ta-a,  etc.,  also  in  the  Assyrian 
period.  (See  Tallqvist  APN.) 

Attar  or  Atar,  the  deity  of  the  Aramaeans,  as  mentioned  above, 
is  regarded  by  some  scholars  as  identical  with  the  Arabian  Athtar 
and  the  Biblical  Ashtart.  In  the  Assyrian  documents  it  is  repre- 
sented in  the  names  A-tar-bi-’-di,  -kam-mu,  -idri,  -qdmu,  -suri, 
(=  -ntnny ),  Bir-A-tar,  fdA-tar-ma-la-aha,  and  in  the  Babylonian 
documents  dAt-tar-nuri,  A-tar-idri,  A-tar-ri-El,  etc.  This  deity’s 
name,  as  is  well  known,  is  combined  with  Ate  in  the  syncretistic 
name  Atargatis  (nnWlfW),  the  chief  goddess  of  the  Aramaeans, 
whose  worship  existed  in  the  late  period  throughout  Syria. 

Dagan,  whose  name  is  written  Da-gan,  Da-ga-an  (Arnarna  317 : 
2),  Ba-gan-na,  and  Da-gu-na  (Bezold  Catalogue  IV  1482),  was  wor- 
shipped in  different  parts  of  Amurru,  hut  his  original  home  seems 
to  have  been  in  the  middle  Mesopotamian  region.  As  mentioned 
above,  Chapter  IX,  about  a dozen  names  in  the  few  tablets  dis- 
covered as  coming  from  the  kingdom  of  Hana  are  compounded 

6 See  article  “Ishtar,”  Hastings  Encyclopaedia  of  Religion  and  Ethics. 


XVII.  THE  DEITIES  OP  AMUEBU. 


175 


with  that  of  Dagan,  and  a number  bear  the  title  “priest  of  Dagan.” 
In  Tirqa,  probably  the  chief  city  of  Hana,  Dagan  was  apparently 
the  patron  god.  Shamshi-Adad,  “king  of  Assyria,  king  of  the 
universe,”  restored  the  temple  of  Dagan,  and  recorded  himself  as 
a worshipper  of  that  god.  The  oath  formulae  of  the  contracts  from 
that  region  show  that  the  people  swore  by  Shamash,  Dagan,  and 
Itur-Mer.  The  property  recorded  in  one  of  the  deeds  is  said  to  be 
that  of  these  three  deities  (see  Chapter  XI). 

In  Canaan  the  deity  was  worshipped  by  the  Philistines  at  Gaza 
(Judg.  16:  23),  and  at  Ashdod  (1  Sam.  5:1).  There  was  also  a 
temple  of  Dagan  near  Joppa,  which  was  probably  Beth-Dagon 
(Josh.  15 : 41).  This  fane  and  its  surroundings  are  represented  by 
the  present  site  Beit  Dejan,  about  six  miles  south-east  of  that  city. 
There  is  another  Beit  Dejan  about  six  miles  south-east  of  Nablus ; 
and  Josephus  mentions  a fortress  above  Jericho  called  Dagon 
(Ant.  XII  8:1).  One  of  the  writers  of  the  Amarna  tablets  was  a 
certain  Dagan-takala.  The  personal  name  I-ti-Da-gan  occurs  in 
a tablet  from  Cappadocia  ( Babyloniaca  1907  p.  19). 

Dagan  was  carried  to  Babylonia  by  the  Semites  at  an  early 
period.  The  first  appearance  in  Babylonian  literature  is  in  per- 
sonal names  of  the  time  of  Manishtusu.  In  the  obelisk  of  that 
ruler  several  names  are  compounded  with  the  name  of  the  deity. 
Dungi,  in  his  thirty-seventh  year,  dedicated  a temple  to  Dagan. 
Two  names  of  rulers  of  the  Nisin  Dynasty,  which  was  founded  by 
an  Amorite  from  Mari,  are  compounded  with  the  god’s  name; 
namely,  Idin-Dagan  and  Ishme-Dagan.  Hammurabi  in  his  Code 
calls  himself  the  warrior  of  Dagan.  More  than  one  early  king  of 
Assyria  also  bore  the  name  Ishme-Dagan.  Ashur-nasir-pal  (883- 
859  B.  C.),  Shamshi-Adad  (823-811  B.  C.),  and  other  Assyrian 
kings  claimed  to  be  devotees  of  Anu  and  Dagan. 

There  seems  to  be  considerable  difference  of  opinion  concerning 
the  nature  of  the  god  Dagan  or  Dagon.7  Since  Dagan  is  equated 
with  Enlil  (CT  24  6 : 22  etc.),  it  seems  reasonable  to  regard  him  as 
possessing  similar  attributes. 

Ea,  as  Chiera  has  proposed,  is  probably  a West  Semitic  deity 

7 For  a full  discussion  on  his  nature,  see  Paton  “Dagon”  in  the  Ency- 
clopaedia of  Religion  and  Ethics. 


176 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  THE  AMORITES. 


( UMBS  XI  1 39  f.).  In  the  name  syllabaries  which  he  published, 
he  finds  Anu,  Ea,  and  dIM  grouped  together,  and  also  Dagan,  Ea, 
and  Ishtar.  In  the  Amorite  syllabary  he  found  El,  Ea,  and  Ishtar 
grouped  together.  If  his  contention  should  prove  correct,  then 
very  probably  the  three  gods  of  the  triad,  Anu,  Enlil,  and  Ea  are 
Amorite. 

In  the  Cassite  period  the  deity  Ea-sliarru  occurs  in  personal 
names,  as:  E ri-ba-dE-a-sarri,  lb-ni-dE-a-sarri,  Nur-dE-a-sarri,  etc. 
This  deity  was  worshipped  at  Calah,  in  which  city  Ashur-nasir-pal 
established  an  image  of  him.  In  the  Amarna  letters  sent  from 
Mitanni,  Ea-sliarru  figures  in  two  lists  of  deities : in  one,  Teshub, 
Shauslika,  Amon,  Sliimike,  and  Ea-sharri;  and  in  the  other,  Slii- 
mike,  Amon,  and  Ea-sharri.  Are  we  to  see  another  syncretistic 
formation  in  this  name?  Shar,  written  Shar,  Shar-ri,  LUGAL, 
and  HI  in  Hittite  names,  occurs  frequently,  as  Ha-at-tu-Shar, 
Ah-li-ib-Shar-ri , It-hi-ib-Shar,  etc.  (see  Clay  PN  p.  33).  One  feels 
inclined  to  inquire  at  least  whether  Shar  was  Semitic  or  Hittite 
(see  under  Shar  below). 

En-lil,  whose  name  was  written  with  two  Sumerian  ideograms, 
En  “lord”  and  Lil  “the  storm,”  is  considered  by  most  scholars 
to  be  of  Sumerian  origin.  The  chief  proof  besides  the  Sumerian 
form  of  his  name  is  found  in  Reissner  SBH  13 : 1-7,  where  what  are 
called  Enlil ’s  seven  chief  names  are  found.  They  are:  Lord  of 
the  lands ; Lord  of  the  living  command,  Divine  Enlil ; Father  of 
Sumer ; Shepherd  of  the  dark-headed  people ; Hero,  who  seest  by 
thine  own  power ; Strong  lord,  directing  mankind ; and  Hero,  who 
causest  multitudes  to  repose  in  peace  (see  Jastrow  RBBA  p.  70). 
The  argument  for  the  Sumerian  origin  of  this  deity  based  upon 
this  evidence  can  by  no  means  be  said  to  be  conclusive.  As  the 
Babylonians  adopted  Adad  and  other  deities,  it  is  reasonable  to 
suppose  that  the  “black-headed”  Sumerians  may  have  adopted 
this  deity.  Further,  the  fact  that  his  name  is  written  in  Sumerian 
is  no  more  proof  of  its  origin  than  that  Ashratu,  the  consort  of 
Amurru,  was  Sumerian,  whose  name  was  written  Nin-gu-edin-na 
(Eme-sal:  Gasan- gu-edin-na),  “the  lady  of  the  plain.” 

Originally  Enlil  was  a storm  deity,  as  his  name  implies.  He  was 
a god  of  the  mountain.  His  temple  was  called  E-kur,  which  means 
“house  of  the  mountain.”  His  consort  was  designated  Nin-har- 


XVII.  THE  DEITIES  OF  AMUERU. 


177 


sag , “lady  of  the  mountain.”  He  is  called  Shadu-rabu  “great 
mountain.”  When  transferred  to  the  alluvial  plain  Babylonia, 
where  agriculture  was  extensively  practiced,  and  which  so  greatly 
depended  upon  the  winter  rains,  Enlil  becomes  a god  of  fertility  or 
an  agricultural  deity.  Primarily,  however,  he  is  a veritable  Adad, 
for  “he  causes  the  heavens  to  tremble  and  the  earth  to  quake.” 
Moreover  in  the  Sumerian  hymn  above  referred  to,  there  is  no  indi- 
cation of  his  original  qualities,  but  the  epithets  reflect  only  a 
broader  and  more  general  character  than  had  been  assigned  him 
in  later  times. 

Although  Enlil  was  the  chief  patron  deity  of  Nippur,  in  the 
Name  Syllabaries  of  the  time  of  the  First  Dynasty  found  in  that 
city,  his  name  occurs  only  twice,  unless  it  is  assumed,  with  Chiera 
( UMBS  XI  38  ff.),  that  it  is  represented  by  the  ideogram  dIM. 
Instead  of  the  later  triad,  Anu,  Enlil,  and  Ea,  there  appears  in 
the  Semitic  lists,  the  triad,  Anu,  Ea,  and  dlM.  As  stated 
above,  the  attributes  of  the  deity  dIM  are  identical  with  those  of 
Enlil,  the  god  of  the  storm  and  atmospheric  conditions. 

Gir  was  the  name  of  a deity  in  the  land  of  Amurru  as  well  as  the 
name  of  a country  (see  Chapter  III).  In  the  West  Semitic  inscrip- 
tions a number  of  names  are  compounded  with  the  deity,  as  Gir- 
milki  ‘md’u  ^rro  , etc.  See  Cook  North  Semitic  Inscrip- 

tions), which  would  show  that  his  worship  was  continued  up  to  a 
late  period.  But  we  are  dependent  largely  upon  evidence  from 
Babylonian  sources  for  the  existence  of  this  Amorite  god.  dGir  sa 
birqi  “Gir  of  the  lightning,”  sa  sadi  “of  the  mountains”  is  also 
identified  with  dKur-Gal  ( =Amurru ),  dMar-tu  (—Amurru),  and 
dSAR-SAR  (see  CT  24  89-94).  dGir  is  also  identified  with  Nergal 
an  importation  from  the  West  (CT  25  50:  15).  The  sign  is  also 
found  in  the  ideographic  writing  of  his  name.  dGiR-GIR-u—dIM 
(CT  25  17:  31).  dSar-ra-pu=dSar-gir-ra  Marki  i.  e.  “Shar-Girra 
of  Amurru  (CT  25  35 : 24)  is  another  syncretistic  formation.  Line 
26  of  the  same  text  reads  Sar-Gir-ra-Sukl.  The  element  appears 
in  the  name  Nin-Gir-Zu  (or  Su)  also  written  Nin-Zu-Gir,  the  deity 
of  Tello,  who  is  identified  with  the  West  Semitic  In-Urta.  In  this 
connection  it  is  natural  to  think  also  of  the  deity  En-Gur,  in  the 
name  of  the  founder  of  the  Ur  Dynasty,  since  the  change  from  Gar 
to  Gor  (written  Gur)  offers  no  difficulty.  The  comparison  is  at 


178 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  THE  AMORITES. 


least  inviting  because  of  other  rulers  of  this  dynasty  bearing  Semi- 
tic names.  Even  Dun-gi  is  not  the  pronunciation  of  the  second 
ruler’s  name  as  shown  by  the  complement  ra  in  the  Sumerian  name 
dDun-Gi-ra-halam-ma,  and  perhaps  others.  It  is  not  improbable 
that  these  Sumerian  forms  represent  Semitic  names.  Since  the 
phonetic  change  of  g into  m is  well  established  in  Sumerian,  the 
latter  being  the  Eme-sal  for  the  former,  and  as  so  many  cuneiform 
signs  beginning  with  m also  appear  with  g,  the  question  arises 
whether  it  may  not  be  possible  that  Gir  and  Mar  are  dialectically 
connected  even  in  names  found  in  the  West. 

It  is  to  be  noted  also  that  GIR  has  the  reading  Su-mu-qa-an, 
Su-mu-ug-ga,  and  Sak-kan  ( CT  29  46:  8,  9)  ; also  Sa-kan  ( CT  12 
3j).  This  may  be  found  in  the  West  Semitic  name  Gir-sakan 
( pD"U),  perhaps  a name  formation  like  Gir-Bafal  and 

Gir-‘ Ashterotli  (mntPJHJI).  Note  also  the  formula  GIR  = dumu 
dBabbar-ge=d  su- ™-<i«-™GiR , CT  24  32:  112. 

Hani  occurs  in  several  names  found  on  Babylonian  tablets,  cf. 
UR-dHa-ni,  Gal-dHa-ni,  etc.,  of  the  Ur  Dynasty;  dHa-ni-ra-bi  and 
Aiuil-dHa-ni  of  the  First  Dynasty;  and  Ha-ni-b e-el- gas-si  of  the 
Gassite  period,  etc.  In  the  Harran  Census  the  names  Ha-an-da-di, 
Ha-an-su-ri,  and  Bir-Ha-a-nu  occur,  which  would  seem  to  associate 
the  deity  with  that  part  of  the  region. 

Hani  bears  the  title  be-lum  ku-nu-uk  “lord  of  the  seal”  ( SBH 
50:8);  and  also  is  called  ilu  sa  dupsarruti  “the  god  of  the  scribes” 
( Shurpu  II:  175).  He  together  with  Nisaba  his  consort  are  cred- 
ited with  being  the  givers  of  the  most  ancient  laws  now  known  (see 
Chapter  XI). 

Lahmu  and  Lahamu.  The  only  trace  of  the  worship  of  Lahmu 
in  the  West  is  in  the  well  known  place  name  Beth-Lehem  in  Judah, 
and  also  in  Zebulun,  now  represented  by  Bet  Lalim,  about  seven 
miles  north-west  of  Nazareth.  These  deities  figure  prominently 
in  the  Marduk-Tiamat  creation  legend,  which  as  previously  shown 
also  emanated  from  the  West  (see  Amurru  44  ff.).  The  names  of 
the  deities  do  not  seem  to  have  been  used  in  the  composition  of 
names  by  the  Babylonians  and  Assyrians.  In  fact  besides  the 
creation  legend  adopted  by  the  Assyrians,  in  which  the  names 
occur,  they  are  only  found  in  late  Syllabaries,  where  they  are  des- 


XVII.  THE  DEITIES  OF  AMURRU. 


179 


ignated  as  god  and  goddess  ( anum  and  antum ) ; see  Deimel  Pan- 
theon Babylonicum  p.  162. 

Marduk  has  been  regarded  as  being  the  contracted  pronunciation 
of  a syncretized  name  Amar-Utug,  combining  the  West  Semitic 
god  Amar  or  Amur  with  Utug.  The  basis  for  this  assumption  is 
the  formula  Amar-Utug  — dA-ma-ru  (B.  11566),  the  personal  name 
U-ri-Marduk  of  the  Cassite  period  (Clay  PN ),  together  with  the 
fact  that  the  Marduk-Tiamat  myth  is  West  Semitic.  If  the  name 
Marduk  originated  in  Babylon  in  this  way  it  should  not  be  found 
in  the  West,  except  through  influence  from  Babylonia.  The  fact  is 
there  is  an  almost  complete  absence  of  the  use  of  the  name  in  the 
West,  in  spite  of  the  claims  of  the  Pan-Babylonists  that  the 
Canaanitic  civilization  was  imported  from  Babylonia. 

Marduk  was  the  local  god  of  Babylon.  As  the  city  is  scarcely 
mentioned  in  the  inscriptions  prior  to  the  First  Dynasty,  neither 
is  the  name  of  Marduk.  Even  in  the  Name  Syllabaries  of  that 
period  it  does  not  occur.  But  with  the  ascendancy  of  Babylon 
under  Hammurabi  he  became  the  chief  god  of  the  pantheon,  when 
he  supplanted  all  other  gods.  The  nomenclature  thereafter  of  all 
the  Babylonian  cities  showed  the  extensive  influence  of  his  worship. 
And  as  is  known,  Babylon  continued  to  be  the  centre  of  the  hege- 
mony established  by  Hammurabi  for  nearly  two  thousand  years. 

Mash  was  the  name  of  a deity  in  Amurru  as  well  as  the  name 
of  a country  and  a mountain.  There  was  also  a city  named 
Ki-Mash  “place  of  Mash”  (see  Chapter  XII).  Although  the  god 
has  not  been  heretofore  recognized  in  the  West,  it  would  seem  that 
his  name  is  probably  compounded  in  that  of  a hero  in  David’s  time, 
Mash-mannah  (1  Chron.  12:  10) ; in  Mish-‘am  (OJ^E),  a name  in 
Benjamin  (1  Chron.  8:  12) ; and  in  the  gentilic  name  Mishraites 
(*jn8?0,  1 Chron.  2 : 53 ) . In  A murru  it  was  conjectured  that  per- 
haps in  the  absence  of  any  etymological  explanation  of  Shamash, 
it  may  have  been  from  Sa  Mash  “(the  god)  of  Mash,”  like  the 
Arabic  Dhu’l  Shard  etc.,  in  other  words  that  the  mountain  Mashu 
was  his  habitat  (see  Amurru  p.  127). 

The  consort  of  Mash  was  Mashtu.  They  are  called  the  children 
of  the  god  Sin  ( Amurru  p.  200).  Mash  is  also  a name  of  the  god 
dNin-IB ; the  sign  MASH  is  used  interchangeably  with  dNin-IB. 


180 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  THE  AMORITES. 


The  Aramaic  equivalent,  for  the  name,  found  on  the  busi- 

ness documents  of  Murashu  Sons  seemed  to  point  to  the  reading 
En-Mashtu  as  the  god’s  name.  En-Ushtu  is  also  possible,  which 
could  be  from  En-Urta  or  In-Urta. 

It  was  also  contended  in  Amurru  (p.  78,  and  Ml  1 ff.)  that  the 
deity  Mash  was  carried  by  the  Semites  to  Babylonia  at  a very  early 
time.  In  the  first  three  dynasties,  Kesh,  Erech,  and  Ur,  names 
compounded  with  the  deity  Mash  or  Mesh  predominate.  Espe- 
cially at  Erech  in  the  early  period  do  we  find  evidence  of  the  wor- 
ship of  this  deity.  Some  have  translated  this  element  as  meaning 
“hero,”  as  for  example  the  name  Mes-ki-ag-nun-na  is  said  to  mean 
“the  hero  the  beloved  of  the  highest.”  Rather  does  it  mean 
“Mesh  is  the  beloved  of  the  great  one,”  or  “Mesh  is  the  great 
beloved.”  Names  setting  forth  the  hero  character  of  individuals 
were  not  given  at  birth ; and  we  have  no  reason  for  believing  that 
they  are  titles.  (See  the  discussion  on  the  name  Gilgamesh  Chap- 
ter VIII.)  The  early  passage,  reading  gain  dMes  sangu  Unu(g)ki- 
ga  “man  of  the  god  Mesh,  the  priest  of  Erech”  (BE  2 87  1:  30) ; 
the  early  seal  reading  Nin-Unugki  en  Mes  e Unugki  “Nin-Uruk, 
high  priest  of  the  god  Mesh,  in  the  temple  of  Erech”  ( Collection  de 
Clercq  83),  the  personal  names  Ur-Mesh  dumu  Lu-Unugki  “Ur- 
Mesh,  son  of  Awil-Uruk  (BA  VIII  p.  31),  show  conclusively  that 
a deity  Mesh  was  worshipped  in  Erech  (see  Misc.  Insc.  p.  3). 

The  character  of  the  deity  may  probably  be  inferred  from  the 
syncretistic  formation  Uruuru  maaiMas  (CT  24  10:  8);  in  other 
words  that  Mash  was  a deity  similar  to  the  mountain  or  storm- 
deity  Urn.  The  association  of  the  god  with  the  mountain  Mashu, 
as  above,  would  seem  to  support  this  Mew.  This  is  confirmed  in 
another  way.  The  god  Nergal  is  a transformed  Uru  from  the 
West.  Another  name  of  Nergal  is  Mesh-Lam-Ta-e  “Mesh  sends 
forth  the  sprout,”  and  this  deity  is  from  Amurru  (see  below  under 
Nergal).  Mash,  Mesh,  and  Mish  are  also  elements  that  figure 
prominently  in  the  temple  names  of  Nineveh,  Cutha,  and  Akkad. 

Nabu  is  also  regarded  by  the  writer  as  being  of  West  Semitic 
origin  (Amurru  p.  144).  The  fact  that  his  name  figures  promi- 
nently in  the  nomenclature  of  West  Semitic  peoples;  and  that 
there  was  a city  Nebo  in  Moab  (Numb.  32:  3,  38),  probably  near 
Mt.  Nebo,  the  place  of  Moses’  death  (Numb.  33:  47),  as  well  as  a 


XVII.  THE  DEITIES  OF  AMURRU. 


181 


city  in  Judah  by  that  name  (Ezr.  2:  29),  make  it  appear  highly 
probable  that  the  original  home  of  the  deity  was  in  Amurru.  What 
is  especially  confirmatory  of  this  conjecture  is  the  fact  that  in  the 
Akkadian  Name  Syllabary  from  Nippur  of  the  period  of  Hammu- 
rabi the  name  does  not  appear ; but  in  the  Amorite  Syllabary  the 
name  I-zi-N  a-bn-u,  is  found.  Owing  to  the  great  ingress  of  Amor- 
ites  in  this  period  some  names  are  compounded  with  that  of  Nabu. 
The  deity  also  received  recognition  on  the  part  of  the  kings.  In 
Hammurabi’s  reign,  “Ezida  the  beloved  temple  of  Nabu”  is  cared 
for.  The  date  for  his  sixteenth  year  reads : ‘ ‘ The  year  in  which 
the  throne  of  Nabu  was  built.”  See  also  the  twenty- seventh  year 
of  Ammi-ditana  ( LIE  III  193,  235,  and  250).  Earlier  than  this, 
we  have  no  knowledge  that  the  deity  was  recognized.  At  any  time, 
however,  the  antiquity  of  his  shrine  may  be  shown  to  be  much 
greater. 

Nashhu  or  Nashuh  is  a deity  found  frequently  in  names  of  the 
Harran  Census,  as  Nashhu-gabri,  etc.  This  form  occurs  rarely 
outside  of  these  tablets  (see  Tallqvist  APN). 

In  the  inscriptions  of  Ashurbanipal  the  fire-god  Nusku  is  fre- 
quently referred  to.  This  king  restored  his  temple,  E-melam-anna 
in  Harran.  From  his  texts  also  we  learn  that  he  is  closely  related 
to  Sin,  Girru,  In-Urta,  and  Nergal.8  These  are  West  Semitic  gods. 
His  consort’s  name  is  Sadarnunna.  In  publishing  the  tablets  of 
the  Harran  Census,  Johns  proposed  that  Nusku  was  very  likely  a 
Syrian  god  originally,  and  that  his  name  in  the  Census  appears 
Nashhu.  This  being  correct  Nashhu  doubtless  more  correctly  rep- 
resents the  actual  pronunciation  of  his  name  in  his  original  habitat. 
At  an  early  date  the  worship  of  this  West  Semitic  deity  was  intro- 
duced at  Nippur,  where  his  name  was  written  Nusku. 

Nergal  is  another  name  which  like  Marduk  is  a contracted  pro- 
nunciation of  the  ideographic  writing  N e-Uru-Gal ; and  was  also 
an  importation  from  the  West  ( Amurru  114  ff.).  Other  names  of 
this  deity  are  Sar-Girra,  Mes-Lam-Ta-e,  etc.  These  two  gods  are 
said  to  have  come  from  Markl  (Amurru,  or  Mari),  and  from  8uki, 
which  is  a district  in  Mesopotamia  ( CT  25  35:  24-26).  The  name 
dMes-Lam-Ta-e  probably  means  “the  god  Mesh  sends  forth  fruit 

8 See  Streck  VB  VII  3 p.  762  and  Tallqvist  APN  p.  259. 


182 


THE  EMPIBE  OF  THE  AMOBITES. 


(or  the  sprout).”  The  habitat  of  Mesh  or  Mash,  who  is  thus 
regarded  as  identical  with  Nergal,  as  noted  above,  is  the  mountain 
Mash.  Like  the  contracted  pronunciation  Marduk,  which  also 
arose  in  Babylonia,  the  form  Nergal  was  not  used  in  the  West 
prior  to  the  exile,  with  one  exception,  which  occurs  on  a seal  found 
at  Ta‘anach;  the  inscription  of  which  reads:  A-ta-na-ali-ili 
( NI-NI ) apil  Ha-ab-si-im  arad  Ne-Uru-Gal  “ Atanah-ili,  son  of 
Habsim,  servant  of  Nergal.”  The  seal  was  unquestionably  of 
Western  origin,  but  the  script  is  Babylonian. 

"Whether  the  ideogram  Ne-Uru-Gal  was  read  or  pronounced 
Nergal  in  this  instance,  or  whether  it  was  simply  employed  to  rep- 
resent the  name  of  some  god  worshipped  in  Palestine,  perhaps 
Gir,  Mash,  Uru,  etc.,  cannot  be  determined.  It  should  be  empha- 
sized that  this  is  the  only  known  use  of  the  name  in  the  early  period, 
when  according  to  the  Pan-Babvlonists  the  civilization  of  Palestine 
is  supposed  to  be  essentially  Babylonian. 

Resheph  ‘ ‘ lightning,  ” “ flame,  ’ ’ the  lord  of  heaven,  lord  of  eter- 
nity and  ruler  of  the  gods,  the  warrior,  is  well  known  from  the  late 
Aramaic  inscriptions  of  northern  Syria.  As  far  as  known  to  the 
writer,  this  deity  is  not  mentioned  in  the  cuneiform  inscriptions. 
He  figures,  however,  in  Egypt,  where  he  is  depicted  wearing  a high 
conical  cap,  to  which  often  is  tied  a long  ribbon  falling  over  his 
back,  and  which  is  ornamented  with  the  head  of  a gazelle.  He  car- 
ries a shield,  spear,  club,  and  sometimes  a quiver  on  his  back.  In 
one  inscription  he  is  called  Reslipu-Saramana,  a syncretistic  form 
which  may  mean  that  he  is  identified  with  the  god  Slialman. 
Together  with  Min  (a  harvest  deity)  and  Qedesh,  Resheph  forms 
a triad  in  Egypt  (see  Muller  EM  p.  155). 

Shamash,  in  the  Amarna  letters,  is  looked  upon  as  the  leading 
deity  of  the  Amorites.  It  may  be  due  to  the  fact  that  the  chief 
deity  of  Egypt,  Amon-Re,  was  solar,  that  he  occupied  such  a promi- 
nent place  in  the  salutations  of  the  Amorite  princes  to  the  Pharaoh, 
in  which  he  is  called  “my  Shamash,  my  god,  my  lord.” 

The  place  name  Betk-Shemesh  near  Gaza,  perhaps  the  personal 
name  Shimshon  (Samson),  as  well  as  names  found  in  the  Cappado- 
cian tablets,  show  how  widespread  was  his  worship.  An  important 
centre  of  Shamash  worship  was  found  in  the  Mesopotamian  dis- 
trict, where  he  was  the  foremost  of  the  triad  who  were  invoked  in 


XVII.  THE  DEITIES  OF  AMURRU. 


1S3 


the  oath  formulae  of  the  Hana  contracts : Shamash,  Dagan,  and 
Itur-Mer  (see  Chapter  XI).  At  an  early  period  the  Semites  car- 
ried his  worship  into  Babylonia,  where  in  the  cities  Sippar  and 
Larsa  he  became  the  patron  deity.  He  is  perhaps  the  best  known 
god  in  the  Babylonian  and  Assyrian  pantheons. 

The  deity  Shamash  was  early  carried  to  Arabia,  and  looked  upon 
as  a goddess.  Winckler  held  the  view  that  the  deity  was  consid- 
ered feminine  also  in  early  Hittite  groups.9  As  mentioned  above, 
the  name  found  in  the  Nippur  Name  Syllabary,  Tu-li-id-dSam- 
si(-si),  shows  that  the  deity  here  was  construed  as  feminine.  (See 
also  under  Mash.) 

Sharu.  There  is  a god  Sham  that  has  figured  very  prominently 
among  the  Semites  in  Amurru  and  Babylonia,  as  well  as  in  other 
lands.  An  important  centre  of  his  worship  was  at  Unmia,  in  Baby- 
lonia, at  present  called  Jokha.  His  name  in  this  region  was 
written  with  the  ideogram  lagab  with  igi-gunu  inserted,  the  correct 
reading  for  which,  namely  Sliara,  is  made  known  by  the  Yale  Sylla- 
bary (MI  53 : 111).  As  in  the  case  of  the  god  Uru  or  Amurru  (see 
Chapter  VII),  other  signs  having  values  pronounced  like  Shara, 
Sharru,  etc.,  without  regard  for  the  meaning  of  the  signs,  were  also 
employed  by  the  scribes  to  reproduce  the  pronunciation  of  the 
name,  as : 


IM  meaning  “wind”;  BARA  meaning  “shrine”;  MARUN 
meaning  “court,  fold,  sheep,”10  HI  meaning  “mass,  totality”; 
LUGAL  meaning  “king”;  AGAR  meaning  “field,”  SHAR  mean- 
ing “vegetable  growth”;  etc.,  all  these  signs  having  values 
pronounced  like  Shar,  Shara,  Sharru,  were  used  by  the  scribes  to 
reproduce  the  sound  of  the  deity’s  name,  who  had  been  introduced 
in  Babylonia  from  the  West.  With  this  practice  of  the  ancient 
scribes,  Langdon  by  his  criticism  and  assertions  apparently  does 
not  seem  to  be  acquainted  ( RA  13  p.  161). 

9 See  Mitteilungen  der  deutschen  Orient-GesellscJiaft  No.  35  p.  53. 

10  MARTIN  = sara  Yale  Syllabary  No.  112,  MI;  AGAR  = sara,  ibid.  No. 


184 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  THE  AMORITES. 


The  name  is  also  written  phonetically  Sha-ra,  Sha-a-ru,  Shar-ru, 
Shar-ra,  Sliar-ri,  etc.  Perhaps  also  Sheru,  or  Slier 11  is  to  be 
included  as  represented  in  West  Semitic  names,  as  Se-ir-id-ri,  Ser- 
ila-a-a,  etc.  (see  Tallqvist  APN) ; and  probably  also  Du’l  Shara, 
the  god  of  the  Nabataeans. 

It  is  not  impossible  that  many  of  the  names  of  deities  composed  of 
LUGAL  and  other  elements  are  Semitic  in  a Sumerian  dress;  and 
that  this  ideogram  is  to  be  read  Shara,  like  dE-a-a-sar-ri  of  the 
Amarna  letters,  which  is  usually  written  dE-a-LUGAL  (see  under 
Ea). 

Sham  appears  especially  in  names  of  the  early  Babylonian 
periods,  see  Sdr-ru-ba-ni,  Sar-ru-tab,  etc.,  and  probably  in  the 
names  Sar-ga-ni-Sdr-ri  and  Bi-in- ga-ni-S ar -rt  (BA  VI  3 85  ft.).  In 
the  Ur  Dynasty  many  names  are  compounded  with  the  deity.  For 
other  compounds  in  which  Shar  appears  as  an  element  in  names 
of  temples  and  deities,  see  the  writer’s  Misc.  Inscr.  p.  15. 

A large  number  of  personal  names  among  the  Hittite-Mitannian 
are  constituted  with  a god  Shar,  cf.  Ha-at-tu-Sar,  Ah-li-ib-Sar-ri, 
It-hi-ib-Sar,  etc.  (see  Clay  PA).  Note  also  the  names  with  Shara, 
which  are  probably  from  the  same  source,  which  have  been  col- 
lected by  Sundwall  Klio  1913,  Elftes  Beiheft  190  ff.  Naturally  the 
question  arises  whether  this  deity  is  the  same ; and  if  so  with  which 
people,  the  Semitic  or  Hittite,  did  his  worship  originate.  If  they 
have  a common  origin,  it  seems  probable  that  the  Hittites  may  have 
borrowed  the  deity  from  the  Semites ; as  is  clearly  evident  they 
did  in  several  other  instances. 

The  Syllabaries  associate  the  god  Shara  with  Adad,  Gir,  Mur, 
Ilu-Mer,  Nergal,  In-Urta,  etc.,  which  shows  that  he  was  regarded 
as  similar  in  character.  This  would  seem  to  indicate  that  he  was 
a solar  or  storm-god.  The  idea  that  he  was  “a  vegetation  god” 
or  “the  god  of  flocks,”  which  Langdon  has  proposed  (BA  13,  161), 
seems  to  be  justified  alone  by  the  employment  of  two  of  the  signs 
used  to  reproduce  the  pronunciation  of  his  name  (see  above).  To 
differentiate  between  deities  as  being  solar-gods,  vegetation-gods 
or  storm-gods  is  more  or  less  artificial,  since  vegetation  is  depen- 

11  Cf.  Ser  = etillu  (B.  4306),  a meaning  the  sign  received  perhaps  like 
the  Aramaic  Mar  “lord”  from  the  name  of  the  deity  Mar. 


XVH.  THE  DEITIES  OF  AMURRTJ. 


185 


dent  upon  the  sun  and  the  rains.  Moreover,  solar-deities  are  also 
vegetation-gods. 

Sin  was  the  chief  deity  of  Harran,  whence  apparently  his  wor- 
ship emanated  at  an  early  time.  The  Assyrian  scribes  who  made 
the  Harran  Census  in  the  seventh  century  wrote  the  name  Si-’, 
showing  that  they  heard  a pronunciation  of  the  name  in  that  dis- 
trict which  was  different  from  that  of  their  own  god  Sin.  (See 
Chapter  XI.)  If  the  eighth  name  of  Berossus’s  antediluvian 
kings,  ’Ajue/^iuos,  is  correctly  understood  to  represent  Amel-Sin,  it 
is  the  earliest  reference  to  the  name  known.  Semites  brought  the 
worship  of  Sin  into  Babylonia  in  an  early  period.  The  geograph- 
ical names  Wilderness  of  Sin  and  Mt.  Sinai  show  the  influence  of 
the  deity  in  the  country  south  of  Palestine.  His  worship  was  car- 
ried as  far  south  into  Arabia  as  Hadramoth  (see  Chapter  II).12 

Zababa  is  a deity  in  the  cuneiform  literature  whose  name  has 
been  read  Za-ma-ma,  Za-mal-mal,  and  Za-ga-ga.  He  is  known  as 
the  patron  deity  of  Kish,  an  early  Semitic  city  in  Babylonia.  This 
deity  has  been  identified  with  Inurta  ( dNin-IB ),  called  mar  restum 
sa  Ekur  “the  first  son  of  Ekur”  in  the  Hammurabi  Code ; and  is 
later  regarded  as  “the  Marduk  of  battle.” 

The  writer  has  shown  from  the  recently  published  Chicago  Sylla- 
bary (see  JAOS  37  328  f.)  that  MA  in  the  name  was  read  ba,  thus 
Za-bd-bd;  and  noted  that  this  pronunciation  approaches  the  name 
of  the  god  Ekron,  namely  Ba‘al  Zebub.  It  was  also  suggested 
that  perhaps  later  we  would  find  more  evidence  of  a deity  in  Wes- 
tern Asia  named  Zabub  or  Zabab,  whose  name  was  reproduced  in 
cuneiform  Za-bd-bd.  Subsequently  it  was  found  that  this  had 
already  been  anticipated  by  Winckler  (MV AG  18  4 p.  70  f.)  in  his 
advanced  notices  of  the  new  cuneiform  material  found  at  the  Hit- 
tite  centre  Boghaz-koi.  In  it,  he  called  attention  to  the  prominent 
role  Za-bd-bd  (which  he  read  Za-ga-ga)  played  among  the  Hittites 
and  allied  peoples,  whom  he  seemed  to  think  was  as  prominently 
worshipped  as  Teshup.  He  had  a temple  in  the  capital  and  prob- 
ably was  the  chief  deity  of  Ellaia  and  Arzia  which  is  inferred  from 
the  part  his  name  played  in  the  great  political  treaties.  The  exist- 
ence of  the  cult  of  Zababa  among  these  peoples,  Winckler  held, 


12  Note  also  the  passage  “field  of  Sin  the  god  of  Halaba,”  VS  VII  95 : 4. 


186 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  THE  AMORITES. 


was  due  to  colonization  or  migration  from  Babylonia  at  a time 
when  Zababa  had  the  same  high  position  that  Marduk  later  had. 
If  this  statement  could  be  supported  by  evidence  of  the  influence 
of  the  Marduk  cult  in  the  West  it  would  have  more  force. 

The  disadvantage  in  not  having  any  light  on  early  Amorite,  or 
in  this  instance  on  early  Hittite,  history  from  native  sources  is 
here  again  felt,  in  that  the  date  of  the  earliest  reference  to  the  deity 
in  Babylonian  history  is  so  much  earlier  than  the  tablets  referred 
to.  In  spite  of  this  fact,  it  seems  to  the  writer  that  Winckler  has 
the  order  reversed ; and  that  Zababa  is  really  a deity  like  Inurta 
with  whom  he  is  identified,  who  was  extensively  worshipped  in  the 
West ; and  was  carried  to  Kish  at  a very  early  date.  Further  dis- 
coveries will  determine  whether  this  is  correct. 

The  syncretistic  name  dUr-dZababa  ( CT  24  8:  5)  is  to  be  noted. 
Probably  Zababa  was  also  a storm-deity;  being  the  Marduk  of 
battle  and  the  foremost  son  of  Ekur  (see  above)  would  accord  with 
this  idea. 

Another  discovery  which  has  recently  become  known  may  prove 
that  the  name  is  to  be  read  Ilbaba  instead  of  Zababa,  Langdon 
has  kindly  informed  the  writer  that  the  equation  il-ba-ba  = dZA- 
MA-MA  occurs  on  a Berlin  text,  which  is  published  in  a Fest- 
schrift dedicated  to  Hommel.  This  suggests  the  equation  ll-Ba  — 
dMA  (CT  25,  27  : 6)  for  comparison.  Moreover,  in  spite  of  Lucken- 
bill’s  contention  (AJSL  35  59  f.),  the  writer’s  proposed  reading  of 
MA  = ba,  in  the  name  seems  thus  to  be  confirmed. 

It  is  of  course  apparent  that  the  trend  of  what  precedes  is 
toward  regarding  practically  everything  that  is  Semitic  Babylo- 
nian as  having  its  origin  in  Amurru.  It  seems  with  the  collapse 
of  the  Arabian  origin  theory  of  this  culture  (see  Chapter  II)  in  the 
light  of  what  has  been  offered,  and  also  what  might  be  assembled, 
that  no  other  conclusion  is  possible.  As  set  forth  in  the  introduc- 
tion, Semites  from  Amurru  entered  the  valley  at  a very  early 
period.  Under  foreign  influences  in  the  new  surroundings  the  old 
culture  developed  differently,  and  when  in  a later  period  a new 
emigration  or  invasion  took  place,  what  had  been  in  the  “melting 
pot”  for  a millennium,  which  we  call  Akkadian,  though  still 
Semitic,  was  strikingly  different.  This  evolutionary  process  needs 
no  explanation  for  history  shows  it  has  gone  on  in  all  ages,  and  is 
going  on  at  present,  and  will  continue  to  go  as  long  as  the  world 
lasts. 


INDEX. 


A-ba-ia,  113 
A-ba-ra-ha-am,  41 
A-ba-ra-ma,  41 
Abbi-Teshshub,  129 
Abdi-Ashirta,  127 
Abdi-Hiba,  129 
Abesha,  144 
Abi-esuh, 

Abi-hud,  165 
Abi-melech,  165 
Abi-shua, 

Abraham,  62 
Ab-ram,  165 
Abu,  36 
Abu-Simbel,  59 
A-da-ad,  165 
Adad-nirari  II,  159 

d a-da-adJJ^  70 

Adapa,  77,  83 
Adgi,  166  f 
Ad-gi-ilu,  167 
Adgi-Siri,  167 
Ad-gi-si-ri-za-bad-du, 
167 

A-du-na-i-zi,  165 
A-du-ni-ba-‘ -al,  165 
A-du-ni-ili-a,  165 
Aelian,  84 
A-ga-al-Marduk,  78 
Agum-kakrime,  99, 116 
A-HA,  83 
Ahi-Jami,  54 
Ahi-wedum,  36 
Ahmose  1, 144 
Ahu,  36 
Ain  Shems,  55 
Ainsworth,  W.  F.,  109, 
110 

Akhukarib,  36 
A-Kur-Gal,  20 
Alaparus,  76,  78, 106 
Alap-Uru,  78 
Albright,  W.  F.,  73 


Aleppo,  124  f 
Al-eshshum,  112 
Almaqu-hu,  34 
Al-Nashu,  167 
Aloros,  76,  78, 106 
Al-Si’,  167 
Al  Wurdi,  109, 110 
Amait,  141 
Amar-a-pa-’ , 68 
Aman-hashir,  54 
Amar-ma-’-a-di,  68 
Amar-na-ta-nu,  68 
Amar-ra-pa-’,  68 
Amar-sa-al-ti,  68 
dAmar-Utug,  25,  passim 
Amegalarus,  76,  78 
Amel-Aruru,  11 
Amel-dEl-Amar,  68 
Amel-Sin,  78 
Amel-Gru,  18 
Amemphsinus,  76,  78 
Amenhotep  II,  147 
Amenhotep  III,  126  f, 
147 

Amenhotep  IV,  126 
Amillaros,  106 
’amir,  67 
amiranu,  6 
‘ Amm,  34,  36,  41 
arnmaru,  67 
Ammenon,  76,  78 
Ammi-bail,  112, 116 
Ammi-enshi,  143 
Ammi-zaduga,  39 
Am-mu-ra-bi,  113 
Amoriah,  68 
‘Amrit,  72,  103 
’Amu,  144 
A-mu-ur-ri-iki,  66 
Amurru,  167 
‘Ana,  116  ff 
Anat,  141 

Anatho,  108, 115, 118 
087) 


Anathoth,  168 
Anbay,  34,  35 
An-Kurah,  34 
Anna,  168 
Au-ram,  169 
Antu,  168 
Anu,  168 
Anu-Mastu,  73 
Anum-pi-Me-ir,  69 
Anus  at,  73 
Apil-Nergai,  81 
Apop,  139 
arahshamna,  72 
Aram,  37,  44 
Ar-data,  72,  78, 106 
argamanu,  72 
Areli,  72 
Ari,  72 
Ariel,  72 
Arik-den-ilu,  159 
Arpachshad,  37 
al  Ar-wa-da,  72,  78 
Ar-wu-u,  80 
Asaph,  55 
A-sa-ru-um,  170 
Ashir,  170 
Asir-Samsi,  171 
Ashirta,  171 
Ashirta-washur,  54 
Ashtaroth,  172 
Ashtaroth-Karnaim,  172 
dAs-tar-te,  172 
Ashur-uballit,  159 
Ashtar-Chemosh,  164 
Ashurbanipal,  99 
Asit,  141 
A-ta  or  Atta,  174 
A-ta-id-ri,  174 
A-ta-na-ah-ili,  182 
Atar-hasis,  77 
Athtar,  34,  173 
‘Attar-4  Ate,  164 
Atum,  141 


188  THE 

A-usar,  170 
Aziru,  127  ff 
Ba‘alath,  65, 140 
Ba-ah-lu-ti,  115 
Balata,  55 
Balbi,  109 
Ba-lu,  80 
Bana-sa-Addu,  81 
Barton,  G.  A.,  28,  8] , 

90,  124, 140,  173  f 
Baudissin,  W.  W.,  140 
Beka‘,  66 
Be-la-qu,  81 
Bell,  Gertrude  L.,  109, 
110, 117 
Beni  Jafna,  48 
Bera‘ , 41 

Berossus,  76,  79,  95 
Beth-Anath,  74 
Beth-‘  Ani’,  169 
Beth-Dagon,  175 
Beth-Lehem,  178 
Beth-Shemesh,  55,  74, 
182 

Bezold,  C.,  174 
Bilga-Mash,  89 
Bir-Da-ad-da,  47 
Biridiya,  129 
Birsha‘,  41 
Bit-Karkara,  124 
Bit-Nin-IB,  74 
bit  su-ri-b  [i] , 111 
tBi-it-ti-dDa-gan,  113 
Bliss,  F.  J.,  53 
Bold,  F.,  26,  34,  72 
Breasted,  J.  H.,  101, 

139  f,  142 

Briinnow,  R.  E.,  23 
Bu-la-aq-qu,  81 
Burchardt,  M.,  138, 

142  f 

Bvblos,  126  f,  passim 
Chantre,  E.,  131 
Chedorlaomer,  97 
Chiera,  E.,  36,  61,  80, 

87  f,  114, 175, 177 
Cernik,  109 
Cicero,  52 
Condamin,  A.,  Ill 


EMPIRE  OF  THE  AMORITES. 


Cook,  G.  A.,  177 
Cook,  S.  A.,  162 
Conder,  C.  R.,  44 
Corsote,  110 
Cowley,  A.,  65 
Craig,  J.  A.,  168 
da-ga-ma,  98 
Dagan,  175 
Damiq-ilishu,  79 
Damascus,  42,  119, 122  f 
Darmeseq,  42 
Da(v)onus,  76,  78 
Decapolis,  48 
De  Goeje,  M.  J.,  28 
Deimel,  A.,  165 
Delitzsch,  F.,  9,  13, 124 
Der  Aban,  55 
Dhaw,  34 
DlnVl  Shara,  179 
Dhu-Samwa,  34 
Diarbekr,  97 
alDi-mas-qa,  122 
dDumu-Zi,  80,  82  f,  95 
Dumu-Zi-Ab-Zu,  83 
Dun-gi,  20,  97,  126 
dT)un-Gi-ra-kalam-ma, 
178 

Dur-Igitlim,  112 
Dur-Isharlim,  112 
Du-’-u-zu,  82 
Ea,  175 

Ea(En-Ki)  -bani(Du) , 
85 

E-Anna,  169 
Eannatum,  90 
Ea-sarri,  176 
dEa-tabu(Dug) , 85 
Ebed-Uru  ahu,  78, 106 
Eber,  37 
Ed-Der,  111 
Edoranchus,  76,  78 
Ekisigga,  111 
Elam,  82 
dEl-Amurru 
El-data,  72 
’El-’Elyon, 
Elepbantine,  63 
El-Glior,  121 
Eliezer,  62 


El  Jezireh,  50 
Ellil-bani,  158 
El-muti,  90 
El-ra-bi-ih,  114 
’El-Shaddai,  167 
E-lu,  80 
El-Ur,  71, 106 
dEn-Amas,  25 
En-bi-As-tar,  172 
dEn-Din-tirki,  25 
en-gi-du,  85 
dEn-ki-du,  85  f 
dEn-lil,  25, 176 
Enlil-bani,  79 
dEn-lil-labira,  158 
Enmastu,  73 
En-Me-Dur-An-Ki,  77 
En-Me-ir-Kar,  69,  80, 

82 

Enurasat,  73 
En-Ur-ta,  74 
E-ta-na,  80,  81,  95 
E-ud-gal-gal,  125 
Eusebius,  76,  79,  90 
Faluja,  81 

Fuye,  Allotte  de  la,  74 
Gardiner,  65 
Gari,  121 

Galu-d Amar-Dingir , 68 
dGestin-An-na,  84 
Gezer,  53 
Gbassanides,  48 
Gdmil-A-nim,  169 
Gir,  177 

Gir-‘  Ashteroth,  178 
Gir-Ba‘al,  178 
Giri-Dadda,  164 
GlR-GlR,  121 
dGlR-GlR-u,  177 
Gir-sakan,  178 
dGir  sa  birqi,  177 
dGis,  88 

dGis-bH-ga-Mesh,  80,  84 
Golenisckeff,  V.  S.,  131 
Goshen,  43 
Gressman,  H..  88 
Grice,  E.  M..  12,  21,  92, 
114 

Gubin,  97 


INDEX. 


189 


Gudea,  33,  96  f 
Guli-Addi,  54 
Gungunu,  93 
Gur-raki,  121 
Ha-ba-ru,  46 
habbatu,  45 
Habiri,  43,  44,  45  £ 
Ha-bi-ir-si,  46 
Ha-ab-si-im,  182 
H ab  ur-ib  al-B  ugash, 

~ 112 

Hadad,  165 
Hadad-Rimmon,  164 
Hadhramotians,  33,  34 
Hagar,  118 
Hagir,  34 
Halabu,  124, 125 
Haleb,  124 
Halevy,  J.,  23 
Halis,  115 
Hallapu,  124 
Halma,  82,  95 
Holman,  124 
Hilprecht,  H.  Y.,  93 
Hammurabi,  97, 113  f 
Hammurabih,  113 
ha’amori,  66 
hamustum,  131, 133 
Hard,  98  f,  178 
Harran,  119  f 
Hat-hor,  140 
Ho-at-tu-Shar,  176 
Haupt,  P.,  67 
Ha-za-el,  47 
Hebron,  47 
Hermitage,  123 
Hobab,  88 
Holma,  H.,  69 
Hommel,  F.,  31,  33,  36, 
39,  73,  77, 114, 121, 
167, 186 
Hrozny,  F.,  171 
Humba,  87 
Hu-um-ba-ba,  87,  95 
Humurtu,  57, 126 
Huntington,  E.,  3 
Huwal,  34 
Hu-wa-wa,  86  ff 
Hu-un-ni-ni,  105, 123 


Iarmuti,  95 
Ibi-Sin,  97, 134 
Ibn  Doraid,  39 
’Ibri,  45 
Idw-dRI,  170 
[7d]  -sa-A-na,  169 
Ikunum,  133  f 
ilani  ha-ab-bi-ri,  45 
ilani  SA-GAS,  45 
Il-Ashirta,  167 
Il-Ba’,  73, 186 
il-ba-ba,  186 
II  Fakhr,  34 
dIl-Ha-al-la-bu,  125, 166 
Ili-i-ma-dWe-ir,  69 

I- li-Me-ir,  69 

II- ka-Me-ir,  69 
Il-Kanshan,  167 
Ilmaqqah,  34 
Il-Tammesh,  167 
Il-Tehri,  167 
Il-Teri,  167 

d i-lu-me-irlM } 7Q)  167 

Ilu-shuma,  156 
Ilu-We-ir,  166 
Im-me-ir-i-li,  78 
dIM-ra,  70 
Irzi,  109 

‘ Ishara,  109,  111 
Isharlim,  116 
Isbi-Urra,  90, 106, 107 
isht,  40 
Ishii-Bal,  94 
IshJcun-N ergot,  21 
I-su-il,  90 

Isidore  of  Charax,  81, 
108 

Islam,  48 
Is-re-il,  90 

I-tur-Me-ir,  69, 112, 164 
I-zi-Na-bu-u,  181 
Jacob-hur,  139 
Jadah-halum,  39 
Jadah-ilu,  39 
Ja-ah-  — , 104, 105 
Jahweh-Sabaoth,  164 
Jahweh-Shalom,  164 
J a-  [ku]  -un-A-sa-ru-um, 
171 


Ja-a-ma,  54 
Ja’mu-Dagan,  112 
Ja-ri-ib-dAdad,  115 
J askur-ilu,  40 
J a-as-ma-  ’-dDa-qan, 

26, 115 
Jasmah-el,  40 
Jastrow,  Marcus,  70 
Jastrow,  M.,  Jr.,  80, 

85,  88,  89, 132, 173, 

176 

Ja-wi(mi) -ba-an-da,  82 
Jensen,  P.,  9, 131 
Jeremias,  A.,  77 
Johns,  C.  H.  W.,  113, 

131, 157 
Joktan,  37 
Josephus,  66, 138 
Ka-lu-mu-un,  80 
Kara  Eyuk,  131 
Karnak,  59 
Ka(  ? ) -sha-Ashir,  158 
Kashtiliashu,  112 
Khnum-hotep,  144 
Ei-en-gi(r)  -ra(DU)  ,122 
Kikia,  156, 158 
Kikkinu,  113 
Ki-Mashki,  37,  passim 
King,  L.  W.,  30,  33,  40, 

86,  91,  96, 157  f 
Kin-gin,  122 
Ki-sa-ah-bu-ut , 115 
Kittel,  R.,  77 
Knudtzon,  J.  A.,  121 
Kraeling,  E.  G.  H.,  120 
Krausz,  J.,  167 
Kudur-Nahundi,  99 
kur-amur,  67 
La-ab-o-an,  159 
Lahmu,  178 
LAL-ur-alim-ma,  77 
Langdon,  S.  H.,  67,  73, 

85, 183, 186 
Larsa  Dynasty,  91 
Libit-Ishtar,  91 
limmu,  131, 133 
Luckenbill,  D.  D.,  29, 

42,  73, 114, 157, 159, 
185  f 


190 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  THE  AMORITES. 


Lugal-Bdn-Da,  82 
Lugal-zaggisi,  20,  90 
Lulubu,  126 
Luschan,  F.  von,  60 
Lutz,  H.  F.,  12,  41, 140, 
167 

Macalister,  R.  A.  S., 
30,54 

Mackenzie,  53,  55 
Madga,  97 
Magan,  33 
Malgu,  105, 119 
Malik,  164 
Manetho,  138 
Manishtusu,  90 
Mannu-dannu,  33 
Mar,  69 
Maratha,  103 
Marathias,  72, 103 
Mar-barak,  69 
Mar-bi’-di,  69 
Mar  dak  os,  35 
Mardokentas,  35 
Marduk,  179 
Mari,  60,  passim 
Mar-jehai,  69 
Mar-la-rim-me,  69 
Ma-ri-la-rim,  69 
Ma-ri-id-di,  69 
Masca,  110 
matmar-ru,  67 
Mar-samak,  69 
Mar-se-te-’ , 69 
Mar  ( TUR)  -su-ri,  69 
Mar-sam-si,  69 
dMar-tu-ba-an-da,  82 
Mash,  179 
ma-a-su,  73 
Mash-mannah,  179 
Mas-Sal-Nun-na,  80 
Mashtu,  179 
Mashu,  37 
ma-asu,  73 
Maynard,  J.  A.,  73 
Medinet,  59 
Megal-Uru,  78, 106 
Megiddo,  55 
Me-is-tu,  124 
Meluhha,  97 


Mer-ka-gi-na,  69 

d me-ir-me-riJ]\/[_j_J]y'[ 

Meissner,  B.,  66,  91 
Meri-ba‘  al,  70 
Memeptah,  149 
Mer,  Mir,  69 
Merra,  107 
Meyer,  E.,  23,  28,  60, 
79, 132,  135 
dMes,  180 

Mes-An-Ni-P ad-da,  80 
Mesheq,  123 
Mes-Ki-Ag-Nun-na,  80 
Mes-ki-in-ga-se-ir,  80 
Mes-Lam-Ta-e,  106, 180 
Mes-Za-Mug(  ?),  80 
Mil-ki-U-ri,  71 
Mil-ku-ru,  71 
Minaeans,  33,  34 
Mir-Dadu,  90 
Mish-‘am,  179 
Montgomery,  J.  A.,  11, 
169 

Mordeeai,  10 
Morgan,  J.  P.,  Library 
of,  81,  113 
Moriah,  68,  153 
Motab-Natiyan,  34 
Muller,  W.  M.,  139  ff, 
170, 172,  182, 185 
Mur,  69 
Murashu,  44 
Mur-ra,  70 
Mursil,  129 

d mu-ri(n) 'JQ 

dMu-u-ru-u,  70 
Musri,  43 
Na-ba-a~a-te,  47 
Nabataean,  47 
Na-bat-ai,  47 
Nablus,  55 
Nabu,  180 
Nabu-rimannu,  72 
Nakarum,  39 
Nannar-Gir-Gal,  164 
Naram-Sin,  33 
Nashhu,  120. 181 
Nasr,  34 
Naville.  M.,  45 


Nedyt,  140 
Nergal,  181 
Nergal-gar-ra,  21 
Ne-Uru-Gal,  25  :1 
Niebuhr,  Prof.,  121 
Nikkal,  141 
Nimrod,  156 
dN  in-a-dam-azag-ga, 
25:1 

dNin-Gal,  25  :1 
dNin-Gir-Su,  25 
dNin-Gis-Zi-Da,  84 
Nin-gu-edin-na,  176 
Nin-har-sag,  176 
dN in-IB,  25 
dN in-igi-zi-bar-ra , 25 

d n 'A/iV-Llf ,nu'ru  ki  yo 

dNin-Marki, 
Nin-Numusda,  73 
Nin-Sun,  84 
d niNin-urUr,  71 
Ninurtu,  73 
dNin-uru(PIN)  ,74 
Ninurut,  73 
Nisaba,  118 
Niswar,  34 
Norris,  F.  A.,  31 
Nu-bdn-da,  82 
Nukara,  141 
Og,  100 

Olmstead,  A.  T.,  12,  79, 
81,  96, 103, 109, 115 
On-Heliopolis,  139 
Ophel,  55 
Orion,  140 
Osiris,  140 
Otiartes,  77,  78 
Pa-gi-rum,  *113 
Pallacopas,  81 
Paton,  L.  B.,  28,  36,  42, 
162,  165,  174  f 
Pekah,  122 
Peleg,  37,  81 
Pepi  I,  143 
Peters,  J.  P.,  109, 117 
Petra,  27,  47 
Petrie,  F.,  59,  65, 139 
Phaliga,  81 
Pi-la-qu,  81 


INDEX. 


191 


Pi-li-qam,  80,  81 
Pilter,  W.  T.,  36,  40,  41 
Pinches,  T.  G.,  131 
Pir’-Amurru,  81 
Pir’-Mer,  69 
Pir’-Pru,  69 
Pi-sa-A-na,  169 
Plutarch,  140 
Poebel,  A.,  35,  77,  80, 
83,  85,  88,  96, 107 
Pognon,  H.,  38,  73 
Prince,  J.  D.,  22,  114 
Put-Ahi,  130 
qdni, 

Quainan,  34 
Qatabanians,  33,  34 
Qedem,  79, 143 
Qedesh,141 
qinnatate,  174 
Radau,  H.,  167 
Ba-’-a-bi-el,  40 
Raibum,  40 
Rarnman,  34,  165 
Ramsay,  Sir  Wm.  M., 
131 

Ramses  II,  130, 149 
Ramses  III,  103, 150 
Ranke,  EL,  36,  40,  91, 
114  f 

Rassam,  116 
Rawlinson,  Sir  H.,  103 
Rennell,  109 
Resheph,  141, 182 
Retenu,  141 
Rezin,  122 
Rim-Sin,  94 
Rogers,  R.  W.,  156 
Sabaea-Himyarites,  33 
Sahure,  142 
Sak-kan,  178 
Samaria,  55 
Sami' , 34 
Samsu-iluna,  97 
Sargon,  90,  96 
Sartu,  83 

Sayce,  A.  H.,  9,  28,  38, 
77,  96, 123, 131  f,  135 
Scheil,  V.,  90,  107,  119, 

131 


Schnable,  P.,  79 
Schoff,  W.  H.,  117 
Schrader,  E.,  28 
Sebastiyah,  55 
Sebek-khu,  144 
Sellin,  E.,  54 
Semachoros,  84 
Semak-Jau,  84 
Semak-Ur,  84 
Serabit  el  Kliadim,  65 
Sesostris  1, 143 
Sesostris  III,  144 
Seti  1, 129, 148 
Slialim-ahu,  158 
Shalman,  141, 182 
Sa  Mash,  179 
Shamasli,  72, 182 
Shamshi-Adad  III,  159 
Shamash-resh-usur, 
106, 118,  119  ‘ 
&amas-wedum-usur , 36 
Shara,  183 
dShar-bcln-da,  80,  82, 

95  124 

Shar-Girru,  164, 181 
dSar-glr-ra  Marki,  177 
Sar-Gir-ra-Suki,  177 
Shar-Maradda,  164 
Sha-a-ru,  184 
dSar-ra-pu,  177 
Shar-Urra,  106 
Sarru-kenu,  133 
Sharuhen,  144 
Shibam,  34 
Shimshon,  140,  182 
Shinab,  40 
Se-ir-id-ri,  184 
Shem,  37 
Shema,  55 
Ser-ila-a-a,  184 
Sheshonk,  150,  169 
Shubaru,  83 
Shubbiluliuma,  127  I 
Shuwari,  83 
Sihon, 100 
Simanu,  72 
Simuru,  126 
Sin,  34 
Sin-abu,  41 


Sinai,  34 
Sin-iqisham,  115 
Sinuhe,  56,  79, 143 
dSir-du,  83 
Sisimordakos,  35 
Snefru,  142 
Solomon,  100  f 
Sprenger,  28 
Steuernagel,  121 
Stratonike,  88 
Streck,  M.,  181 
St.  Stephen,  107 
Su-abu,  156 
Suhi,  115,  117  if 
sumu,  40 
Sv^mu-qa-an,  178 
Sutu,  47 
Syncellus,  35 
Su-ba-an-du(di) , 82 
d8UR,  68 
Syncellus,  76 
Tabba-edi,  36 
Tabba-wedi,  36 
Ta’lab,  34 
Tallqvist,  K.,  181, 
tamertu,  67 
Ta-mu-zu,  82 
Ta'anach,  54,  62,  63 
Tell  el-Hesy,  53 
Tell  Mutesellim,  55 
Teshub,  18, 166 
Thammoza,  82 
Thilutlia,  119 
Thureau-Dangin,  F., 
73,  92,  96, 114. 131, 
133 

Thutmose  1, 127, 145 
Thutmose  II,  145  f 
Thutmose  III,  48,  53, 
56, 100,  145  f 
Thutmose  IV,  147 
Tiamat,  139 
Tidnum,  82, 121, 124 
Tiglath-pileser  1, 119, 
160 

Tinkarum,  39 
Tirqa,  111,  112, 118 
Tofteen,  O.  A.,  66, 161 
Torrey,  C.  C.,  12 


192 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  THE  AMORITES. 


Tukulti-Inurta,  159 
Tukulti-Me-ir,  69, 116 
Tu-li-id-dSamsi  (si), 
164, 183 
Tutul,  106, 119 
U-a-a-te-’,  47 
TJbar-Tuiu,  77 
ummanu,  77 
dU  mun-bad-urudu- 
nagar-ki,  25  :1 
Uni,  143 

Ungnad,  A.,  41,  91 
Ur  of  the  Chaldees,  102 
u-ra-su,  73 
Urbillu,  126 
Uri,  108 

’Uria,  70,  73, 168 
UR-Inurta,  91,  93 
TJ -ri-im-me-i,  71 
alTJri(U RTJ) -wa-da,  78 
Uri-wada,  72 
Ur-Nina,  20 
Ur-ra-gal,  71 
Urra-imitti,  90, 106 


Ur-ru-da 

Ur-dSar-banda,  132, 134 
’Urta,  70,  73 
Uru-Mash,  164 
Uru-mush,  90 
U -ru-sa-lim,  71,  74 

d n-rumJJru(pjN^ri^ 

d u-rumJJrum>  71 

TJ ruu'ru"ma-asM as,  71 
U -ru-mil-ki,  71 
Uruu'ru-Tab,  71 
dTJr-dZababa,  186 
Ushpia,  156, 158 
W arad-dW e-ir , 69 
Ward,  W.  H.,  86  f,  133 
Weber,  0.,  121 
W edum-liblut , 36 
dW e-ir -a-bu-su,  69 
Weissbacb,  F.  H.,  106 
Wilderness  of  Sin,  35 
Winckler,  II.,  9,  28, 

39,  42,  183, 185  f 
Wright,  W.,  9,  28 
Xenophon,  110 


Xisuthrus,  77,  78 
Yakut,  117 
Yemen,  48 
Yuzgat,  135 
Za-bd-ba,  185 
Za-ga-ga,  185 
Zakir,  69 

Zakku-Igitlim,  113 
Zakku-Isharlim,  113 
Z a-mal-mal , 185 
Zanzum,  40 
Zebub,  185 
dZe-ir-tu,  83 
Zi-i[m. . .],  104,  105,111 
Zimmern,  H.,  9.  22,  44, 

.77. 

zimri,  40 

Zimri-Hanata,  116 
Zoan,  45 
Zu-ga-gi-ib,  80 
Zur,  34 

. . .-um-Shamasli,  60,  89, 
105 


GETTY  RESEARCH  INSTITUTE 


3 3125  01538  3579 


